IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.2.2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
C.M.A.SR.No.23694 of 2005
and
C.M.P.No.10083 of 2005
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited,
Bharathipuram,
Dharmapuri. ... Appellant/Respondent
vs.
Ravichandran. ... Respondent/Petitioner
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 27.6.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.133 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Hosur.
For appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran
-----
JUDGMENT
The Miscellaneous Petition No.10083 of 2005 has been filed for condoning the delay of 397 days in preferring the appeal. Notice is yet to be served in spite of lapse of long period.
2. On going through the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, the memorandum of grounds of appeal and the reasons given in the award of the Tribunal, this court is not inclined to condone the delay for the following reasons:-
(i) There is a delay of about 10-1/2 months in filing the copy application for certified copy of judgment and decree.
(ii) There is a delay of about 15 days in sending the certified copy of judgment and decree to the appellant corporation by the counsel who appeared for the appellant corporation before the court below.
(iii) There is a delay of 30 days in getting legal opinion and the approval from the appeal committee.
(iv) It is a case of injury in the accident which happened on 28.8.1998.
(v) The injured claimant Ravichandran, aged 33 years, an employee in Velmurugan Industires and was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month.
(vi) The award was passed on 27.6.2003 for a sum of Rs.85,000/- with 9% interest.
(vii) The appeal is filed primarily challenging the quantum of compensation.
(viii) The appeal was filed on 21.3.2005 along with the petition for condonation of delay.
(ix) In the petition for condonation of delay, notice was ordered on 29.6.2005. Till date service was not effected and many years have passed.
It is stated that the award was passed on 27.6.2003 and the lower court counsel could not file the copy application in time as was suffering from jaundice. No proof is filed to that effect. Even though it is stated that the papers were misplaced by the staff, who was dealing with this matter, the affidavit of the concerned staff has not been filed. There is undue delay on the part of the counsel for the corporation who appeared before the court below in sending the certified copy of the judgment and decree to the appellant corporation. There is also delay in getting legal opinion and approval from the appeal committee, which caused the delay in prosecuting the appeal and which delay according to this court, has not been properly explained. Further, considering all the aspects of the case as above, this court finds no good reason to order fresh notice and to condone the delay after service, which will cause further prejudice to the injured claimant who is suffering prejudice as the fruits of award has not been paid to him after lapse of five years.
3. Moreover, on going through the award, I find no major infirmity on merit in the order of the Tribunal that would require interference by this Court so as to reduce the quantum of compensation. The counsel for the appellant is not able to establish prima facie any grave infirmity in the order under challenge which requires consideration by this Court in appeal.
4. Considering the date of accident, date of award, date of preferring of the appeal, this court is not inclined to grant further time for service of notice to condone the delay, at this point of time. This will cause great prejudice to the claimant.
5. In such view of the matter, the petition filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is rejected in the SR stage.
ts
To
The Subordinate Judge,
(The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Hosur