High Court Kerala High Court

P.Nissar vs Bharathan on 19 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.Nissar vs Bharathan on 19 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2292 of 2010()


1. P.NISSAR, AGED 56 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BHARATHAN, S/O.KANDAKUTTY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SUDHISH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :19/11/2010

 O R D E R
             A. K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
            ----------------------------------------------------------
                      C.M.Appln.No.2897 of 2010 &
                        M.A.C.A.No.2292 OF 2010
             ---------------------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010

                                 JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

The prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act is to condone the delay of 755 days in filing the appeal.

2. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on November

5, 2007. But according to the petitioner/appellant, even though the copy of

the award was obtained on July 2, 2008 and his counsel had advised him to

file an appeal, he could not do so, since he was perplexed and did not know

what to do. Thereafter in 2009, he came to know that as against the award

in the connected case, the claimant had filed an appeal. At that time also,

petitioner was not in a position to take any steps since he was involved in

another accident and was advised to take bed rest for three months. Still

further, due to heavy rain in June-July, there was leakage in his house and

repair had to be carried out. The copy of the award was misplaced

somewhere. It could be traced out in the last week of August 2010. At last

in the second week of September 2010, he entrusted the matter to his

MACA.No.2292/2010 2

counsel. It is thus the present appeal has been filed.

Having carefully perused the averments in the affidavit, we are not at

all satisfied with the so called explanation offered for condonation of the

inordinate delay. Therefore, the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently,

the appeal is also dismissed.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
sv

MACA.No.2292/2010 2