High Court Kerala High Court

Ajikumar vs Thazil on 2 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Ajikumar vs Thazil on 2 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 819 of 2010()


1. AJIKUMAR, S/O.BABY AMMA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THAZIL, KURANDIVILA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. JAYAPRAKASH.N.,

3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :02/06/2010

 O R D E R
                     A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                               C.M.Appln.1055 OF 2010 &
                                 M.A.C.A.No.819 OF 2010
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         Dated this the 2nd day of June 2010

                                         JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

In this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the prayer is

to condone the delay of 651 days in filing the appeal.

2. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on May 16, 2008.

According to the petitioner, he is employed in one of the Gulf countries and even

at the time of the passing of the award he was away at his work place. He could

not come back to the country and make arrangements to file the appeal. When he

came down to Kerala and went to the office of his counsel, he was informed that

the counsel had gone on a vacation. Ultimately he obtained the copy of the

award and made arrangements to file the appeal. Thus, a delay of 651 days has

occurred.

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

satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner to condone the inordinate

delay. We have also perused the award. Having regard to the single injury

suffered by the petitioner, we are of the view that the amount of compensation of

Rs.45,120/- awarded to the petitioner is just and reasonable. For that reason

also, we are not inclined to issue notice on the delay petition. Therefore, the

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

Sd/-

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

Sd/-

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
jes
// true copy //
P.A. to Judge
jes