_ 1 ALI
M.F.A.N0.644/2010 E3/W
MESC.CV|.NOS.1354 8:. 135612010
IN1}fl§fiKHiCOURT(fi?KARNKMMUXATBANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE I~ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE I~I.G.RAMESI~§= 'f '" V' '
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NQ.64;4}'2--{)'_10"w: _ Q ''
Ml'
M1sc.cvL.Nos.1354/2010 &%"235Gé/2omE'«.N 2 'E
BETWEEN:
THE: NATEONAL INSURANCE CQ.LTD...""" -.
BYITS MANAGER .
REGIONAL OFFICE
SHUBHARAMCOMPLEX, 2~D;=1.GoRf_ :
NO.144,M.G.ROAD, _' _
BANGALORESBO V ~
POLICY ISSUED'-Aftig, ~.
THE BRANCH MANAGERM . .
THE NA'1'ION_AL INSURANCE» CO, ;;'*:*_!:>
v.v.RoAD ' _ *
MANDYA cm: . . " ...APPELLANT
_ .. {BY SR1 «\i{ISH1.vANA;m..s,SHETPAR, ADVOCATE)
1. "'z.B.'s.A':'I;E:-3&1
S 2'0 BASAVA E2.A.J
AG A13GLIf3:'~=36 YEARS
R/O VA1DyANA'I':HAPURA VILLAGE
"=T\/IADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
'r.i1j.;v1' 'ADHUKAR
sgo N.s.DEVAKUMAR
""?V1AL.J OR, R/O NIDAGIrEA'ITA VILLAGE
_ 2 IIIA
M.F.A.No.644/2010 a/w
Misc.Cvl.NOS.1354 & 1356/2010
AND POST, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT. ..RESPONDENTS
[BY SR1 M.E.MADHUSUDHAN. ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED}
MFA. Is FILED U/S.30[1) OF THE w.C.ACT AGAINsI5f;.””v..
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.07.2008 PA_S_SE”D._.i’N___ – ;_.
WCA/NFC/CR~3/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR -OFFICER
AND COMMISSIONER FOR VVORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB
DIVIsION~2, MANDYA, AWARDING A __ICOM4FENsA’rIOI.’\j»
RS.I,20,009/~.
MISCCVLIIBS4/201.0 IS FILF:D*.__ LI-/_S.5 I
LIMITATION AC’? PRAYING TO CONDQNE TIEE DELAY’QF_{I76_V§
DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL.
MISC.CVL.1356/201018 FILED~-U/O zI–»I__ RULE ~5..OE”cPc
R/W SECTION 15] OF CPC PRAYIN-3 TO s’IjAY THE OPERATION
OF THE JUDGMENT AND “–AwARDi. DA’I*F:D._ 31.7.2008 IN
WCA/NFC/CR-3/2005 PASSED’-BY NIEMBER, LABOUR
OFFICER AND .COMMI.ssIONER~ _ FOR I ” WORIIMIBNS
COMPENSATION, SUB.;DIVIS1ON -2: MANDYA.
APPEAD AI”I.TI53_ API?LI’CAIIONs COMING ON
FOR ORDERS ‘THI;~3j’=DAY, COIIRT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWINCQ1 . ‘ .~
– E N ‘1’
Tf:eIje:1s__a de’Ia3I….0f’ more than One year and three
I.I.”‘I1(§I1f:IIS~ _ ” ‘ days) in filing the appeal.
MisC.C’VI. is fiied for condonation Of the deiay.
III~–.__I’g_haVe’ heagrdv the learned counsel appearing for the
4A__af)}:\eVIIaIa:t and perused the affidavit flied in support Of the
____”a’ppI.i.CatiOn for Condonation Of the delay. In my Opinion,
{Erie cause shown is not sufficient to condone the
:)’I}”‘),~«~”‘II
1*’ ,/
5
V7 3 _
M.F.A.No.644/2010 a/w
Misc.Cv|.N0s.13S4 & 1356/2010
inordinate delay of more than one year and three months
in filing the appeal. Accordingiy, MiSC.CV1.1354/201_Q.VViS_i~.,_
dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also 1-
dismissed. In View of dismissaiiyyyyyof t}_.”1’e”””~éi[3p’€8~1.”_
Misc.CV1.1356/2010 filed for interirn s_i’aj,r: ‘«
dismissed.
The amount lying inypdeposit.iivit1i–~..i;his’ Cov1..:ArtVA..sha11
be transferred to the can-:i RCo_m:mi.ssioner for
Workmerrs Co1jI1p:en._sat:f__ori’,:’ ‘ Mandya
forthwith.
,peVddyy;dy’ JUDGE
A. ****