High Court Kerala High Court

Kunhalassan @ Hassan vs Abdul Razak on 25 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Kunhalassan @ Hassan vs Abdul Razak on 25 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2442 of 2010()



1. KUNHALASSAN @ HASSAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. ABDUL RAZAK
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :25/11/2010

 O R D E R
              A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     C.M.Appln.No.3164 of 2010 &
                       M.A.C.A.No.2442 OF 2010
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Dated this the 25th 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 623 days in filing the appeal.

2. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on

December 1, 2008. It is admitted by the petitioner that copy of the

award was received on December 20, 2008 itself. But according to

him, he could not make arrangements to file the appeal because of

financial difficulty. He further states that he had to spend huge amount

for his treatment.

3. Having perused the averments in the affidavit filed in

support of the application, we are not at all satisfied with the so called

explanation offered by the petitioner. Nevertheless, we have perused

the impugned award as well. Considering the nature of the injuries, the

Tribunal, in our view, has awarded just and reasonable compensation.

As against a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the Tribunal is seen to have

MACA.No.2442/2010 2

awarded Rs. 1,33,505/- with interest and cost. In that view of the

matter also, the award does not call for any interference.

In any view of the matter, the delay has not been explained

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

appeal is also dismissed.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

sv.

MACA.No.2442/2010 3