P RAMA MURTHY Vs. ABDUL SHARIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant in MVC No. 5031/2009 on the file of MACT, Bangalore, has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein. The said appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 222 days. Hence I.A.I./2012 is filed seeking condonation of the same.

(2.) Heard the Counsel appearing for appellant. Perused the affidavit filed in support thereof. On going through the same, it is seen that after the award was passed by the Tribunal, the same was satisfied by the respondents during the third week of December, 2011. Sofaras the delay is concerned, it is stated that the claimant was under the bonafide belief that his lawyer will file the appeal by himself and when he had gone to the Court for withdrawal of amount, he came to know that the appeal is not filed. This appears to be farfetched and unbelievable. In any event, the affidavit of the advocate is not on record to substantiate the same. In that view of the matter, this Court find that the reasons stated in the affidavit does not stand to reason. Even otherwise, on going through the Judgment impugned, it is seen that the claimant said to have suffered fracture of shaft of right femur middle 1/3rd and avulsion and injury dorsum of right foot. Except the wound certificate, nothing is produced to substantiate the same and there is nothing on record to substantiate that he has undergone treatment for that length of time in Government Hospital. In the absence of discharge summary to substantiate the hospitalization and surgical intervention to the wound as averred in the Claim Petition, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. In that view of the matter, even if this application for condonation of delay is allowed, no grounds are made out to consider for enhancement. Accordingly application filed seeking condonation of delay of 222 days in filing the appeal is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed.