PATHAKKA ALIAS PATHAMMA Vs. S. MALLAIAH AND THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by M.A.C.T., Hiriyur, dated 31st May 2011 in M.V.C. No. 53/2010, whereunder the claim petition has been allowed in part and a total compensation of Rs. 38,132/ - with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization has been awarded. Since, there is a delay of 529 days in filing the appeal, an application I.A. No. 1/2013 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The reason given in paragraph -2 of the affidavit supporting the application reads as under:

(2.) I state that, I have sustained injuries in the accident, due to injuries, I have spent huge amount towards medical expenses. My Advocate after closing of evidence informed me that he will inform the final judgment of the case. My advocate inform me about passing of the award only in the second week of October 2011, I contacted my advocate in the first week of January 2012 and due ill health and viral fever collected the certified copy of the judgment and award in the second week of September 2012, due to financial problem, I came over to Bangalore in the first week of December 2012 and contacted and discussed with the advocate to file Appeal, after verification of the judgment and award advocate informed me to bring other case papers pertaining to my case and hence, I came back to Hiriyur and obtained required case papers, in the last week of January 2013, and in the first week of February 2013, came over to Bangalore and filed this appeal immediately without further delay. The delay is due to above said bone -fide reasons and not intention one. 2. It is no doubt true that it is not the length of delay which requires to be considered by this Court but the cause shown i.e., existence of sufficient cause which requires to be considered and as to whether delay is to be condoned by accepting the cause shown. No litigant would stand to benefit in approaching the Court belatedly. However, if the cause shown is not sufficient or in other words, cause shown is insufficient, then, this Court would be slow in condoning such delay. When the delay is inordinate and unexplained and reasons given in the application or the affidavit supporting such application as the case may be is fraught with vagueness, in such circumstances, this Court would not condone the delay. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions have repeatedly held that technicalities had to yield to substantial justice. On the ground of delay, the larger relief to which the litigant may be entitled to cannot be deprived of. At the same time, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that delay disentitles to any relief since delay defeats equity. Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1353 has held that courts should adopt liberal approach -in condoning delay. It has been held as under:

(3.) KEEPING the principles enunciated by Their Lordships in the above judgments, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that award in question came to be passed on 31.5.2011. However, claimant did not apply for certified copy immediately. Thereafter it was applied after a period of nearly one year i.e., on 20.4.2012. The reason assigned in the affidavit supporting the application is the negligence of the Advocate viz., it is contended by the claimant that it was the duty of the Advocate to inform her about the progress of the case and since she was not informed as to the status of the case, she could not meet her Advocate to apply for grant of certified copy. This contention of the appellant requires to be examined for purposes of outright rejection inasmuch as it is duty of the client to approach the Advocate to find out as to the status of the case and not vice versa. Even otherwise, appellant herself admit that her Advocate had informed her about the passing of the award in question during second week of October 2011. Even after being informed, she did not contact her Advocate for the reason best known. Again she admits in her affidavit that she met her Advocate during first week of January 2012. As to why she had not contacted her Advocate for a period of two and a half months, no reasons are forthcoming from the affidavit. Claimant has stated that she obtained certified copy during September 2012, which is also falsehood since the certified copy has been furnished to the claimant during June 2012, as could be seen from the certified copy of judgment and award accompanying the appeal. Hence, the reason given by the claimant for condonation of delay is loaded with false statements and as such, cause for delay cannot be accepted.