NARAYANAMMA Vs. K P JAGGANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K. Prabhakar as well as Mr. T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. H. G. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

(2.) THIS appeal had been filed, delayed by 2145 days, along with the application for condonation of delay. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 5. 10. 1989. Considering this period which has passed away since the date of occurrence, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, I thought it better not only to consider the matter relating to I. A. I. , i. e. , application for condonation of delay, but to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of appeal as well and to dispose of the appeal, if I condone the delay.

(3.) AS regards the appeal which is barred by 2145 days, it would be just and proper to mention here that the Tribunal passed the award dismissing the claim petition on 30. 11. 1991. According to the appellant-applicant, as advised by her counsel in the court below the claimant who is a village rustic woman got the review filed on 7. 12. 91. The review application was disposed of and allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 2. 5. 1992. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Tribunal allowing the review application under Order 47, the oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed M. F. A. No. 2489 of 1992. That appeal came to be disposed of finally on 4. 2. 1998 by this court (Hon'ble B. Padmaraj, J.) with the finding that review was misconceived and the proper course for the present appellant, i. e. , the claimant was to file an appeal challenging the order rejecting the claim petition vide its order dated 4. 2. 1998. Six weeks' time was also granted by this court to the appellant to file the appeal in this court from the award dated 30. 11. 1991 with expectation that delay in filing the appeal in the circumstances may be condoned, if appeal is filed within six weeks. The present appeal has been filed on 17. 3. 98. The delay has been tried to be explained on the ground and on the basis that the appellant had been pursuing remedy bona fide as advised by the counsel and the review was filed. But this court finally held that review was not maintainable. As such, delay could be condoned.