IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 MACA.No. 1095 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.821/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P.CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.S.VARGHESE, S/O. SCARIA, KAITHAKUDY HOUSE, IRAMPURAM VILLAGE, IRAMPURAM KARA, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. K.R.NARAYANAN PILLAI, ANUPALLAVI, RAYAMANGALAM, KURUPPAMPADY, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. SAJU, S/O. ITTAN, MUKANDOMCHERRY HOUSE, VENGOLA VILLAGE, VENGOLA, VARIKADUKARA, PERUMBAVOOR. * 4. MRS.MARY VARGHESE, W/O. THE LATE K.S.VARGHESE, KAITHAKUDI HOUSE, IRAMPURAM VILLAGE. *5. REV. FR. BOBBY VARGHESE, S/O. THE LATE K.S. VARGHESE -do- -do-. *6. MR.BIJU K.VARGHESE, S/O. THE LATE K.S VARGHESE -do- -do- *7. MRS. BINJU K.VARGHESE, S/O. THE LATE K.S. VARGHESE – 683 542. LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7 AS PER ORDER DATED 18.11.2011 IN I.A NO.2471/2010 ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA ,J. ------------------------- C.M.Appli. No.1030 of 2007 & M.A.C.A No.1095 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th December, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT This petition is filed to condone the delay of 316 days in filing the appeal. 2. The impugned award is passed as early as on 31/8/2005. According to petitioner, the free copy was obtained only much later but date is not mentioned. The copy was misplaced in some other place and could not be traced out immediately. Thereafter, a copy application was filed on 16/6/2006 for certified copy and it was collected on 22.7.2006. The file was processed and forwarded to Ernakulam from where the opinion of the panel counsel was obtained. Thereafter, it was felt that the award is to be challenged and necessary instructions were given to the counsel. In the meantime, there is a delay of 316 days in filing the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for 5th respondent filed counter statement and contended that there is no bona fides in filing this petition after a long delay of 316 days. The C.M.Appli. No.1030 of 2007 & M.A.C.A No.1095 of 2007 2 appeal is filed only because of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404] as per which the appellant may be believing that there is a chance of winning the case. 4. It is also submitted that the averments in the affidavit are vague and delay is not satisfactorily explained. Even for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent and to set aside abatement appellant took 999 days to file a petition to set aside the abatement. Respondent is put to great difficulties because of the act of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the person who has sworn in the affidavit is not conversant with the facts on which the affidavit is filed as it is clear from averments. Arguments were advanced in the light of the decision reported in Ram Nath Sao Vs. Gobardhan Sao [2002 (3) SCC 195] also. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioner to condone the delay are vague. Relevant dates are not mentioned in the affidavit. That apart, I found that there is some merit in C.M.Appli. No.1030 of 2007 & M.A.C.A No.1095 of 2007 3 the contentions raised by the respondents counsel that petitioner is motivated to file the appeal in the wake of the decision in Tilak Singh's Case [2006 (4) SCC 404]. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit refers to the said decision. 6. Considering the various facts and circumstances, I find that delay is not satisfactorily explained and there is no reason to condone the delay. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost to the respondent. But I am not persuaded even by said submission to condone the delay, in the absence of sufficient averments in the affidavit explaining reasons for the delay. Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge C.M.Appli. No.1030 of 2007 & M.A.C.A No.1095 of 2007 4 C.M.Appli. No.1030 of 2007 & M.A.C.A No.1095 of 2007 5