High Court Kerala High Court

Jyothsana vs K.R.Appavoo on 28 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jyothsana vs K.R.Appavoo on 28 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2110 of 2010()


1. JYOTHSANA,D/O.ROSH THOMAS,RESIDING AT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.R.APPAVOO,S/O.RAMASWAMY,RESIDING AT
                       ...       Respondent

2. R.SANKAR,S/O.RAMASAMY,RESIDING AT

3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :28/10/2010

 O R D E R
               A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      C.M.Appln.No2726 of 2010 &
                         M.A.C.A.No.2110 OF 2010
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010

                                  JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

The prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act is to condone the delay of 866 days in filing the appeal.

2. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on

January 4, 2008. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was a

minor. It is averred by the petitioner that she was not in a position

” to maintain frequent contact with her counsel in the court below”. It

was only when she met her counsel that she came to know that an

award had been passed. Even though, the counsel informed her that a

communication had been sent about the award, she had not received the

same. Significantly, the guardian who had conducted the case is now

remains in the background for obvious reason.

We have carefully perused the averments in the affidavit filed in

support of the application to condone the inordinate delay. We are not

at all satisfied with the so called explanation offered by the petitioner.

M.A.C.A.No.2110/2010 2

A perusal of the endorsement on the certified copy of the award will

show that copy had been delivered on November 20, 2008. But the

appeal is filed only on September 19, 2010. The affidavit is totally

silent as to when the petitioner met her counsel. In any view of the

mater, we are not at all satisfied with the explanation for the delay.

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

also dismissed.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

sv.

M.A.C.A.No.2110/2010 2