RAMESH KUMAR Vs. MAHIPAL SINGH BISHNOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988'), for enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (for short, 'the learned Tribunal') vide its award dated 2nd of February 2009.

(2.) THE appeal has been preferred after inordinate delay of 565 days and for seeking condonation of delay the appellant has laid an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application for condonation of delay is absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific, and the appellant has not made any endeavor to explain cause of delay much less sufficient cause. Admittedly, the impugned award was made on 2nd of February 2009 and uptil May 2010 the appellant has not even bothered for obtaining certified copy

(3.) THE law of limitation is based on the maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium". While construing the meaning, scope and rationale law of limitation, and exercising the discretionary power of the appellate Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Apex Court in case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. Vs Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr., has made following observations in Para 26 to 30: