Kerala High Court
Nyja vs E. Rarichutty on 20 May, 2024
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
MACA NO. 3491 OF 2023
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.12.2007 IN OP(MV) NO.90 OF 2001 OF
IST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
NYJA,
AGED 46 YEARS,
W/O. P. K DANOJ KUMAR, PURAYIDATH KANDY HOUSE,
ELATHUR (PO), CALICUT., PIN - 673303
BY ADVS.SMT.A.D.DIVYA
SRI.SABIN BABU
SMT.NAVYA SONY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 E. RARICHUTTY
S/O. CHERIYAKKAN, THACHANADATH VEEDU,
PUTHIYANGADI P.O., PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM,
DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673021
2 K.E HARIDASAN,
S/O. CHANDU NAMBIAR, PANCHAMI HOUSE, ELATHUR AMSOM,
DESOM, P.O ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673303
3 THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, TRIPURI BUILDING,
NADAKKAVU, CALICUT, PIN - 673011
R3 BY ADV.SRI.LAL K JOSEPH
SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR
SRI.ANZIL SALIM
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.M.Application No.1 of 2023
&
M.A.C.A.No.3491 of 2023
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024
C.M.Application No.1/2023 is an application seeking to
condone delay of 4946 days (excluding the Covid-19 period from
15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022), occurred in filing the appeal on
hand.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is
stated that though the appeal ought to have been filed on or
before 30.03.2008 the petitioner could not, in view of the
serious injuries sustained by her in the motor accident. She was
bedridden on account of total paralysis of her body after the
motor accident. Her husband was taking care of her all
throughout. According to her, her husband being her sole care
taker all throughout, he could not travel to entrust the case files
to a counsel at Ernakulam, to file an appeal. She has also stated
about misplacement of the case file at the office of the lawyer in
Kozhikode. According to her on getting a slight relief, she
&
travelled upto Ernakulam and met a counsel and filed the
appeal. The delay was occurred in the above process and she
seeks to condone it.
3. Counter affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent in
the CM application. The contentions raised were that delay of
almost 13.5 years was occurred in filing the appeal. According to
him the certified copy of the award itself was obtained only in
the year 2023 despite the factum that the impugned award was
passed in the year 2007.
4. The learned counsel has relied on the dictum in Esha
Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur
Nafar Academy and Others [2013 (12) SCC 649] where it
was held that the increasing tendency to perceive delay as a
non-serious matter and hence, lackadaisical propensity can be
exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of
course, within legal parameters.
5. True that the petitioner suffered quadriplegia and the
Medical Board has certified her permanent disability as 75%.
Therefore, there is merit in her contention that she was unable
&
to do things on her own. According to her, her husband was
taking care all throughout and therefore he could not travel upto
Ernakulam to meet a lawyer and to file the appeal.
6. Petitioner has no case that the passing of the award
by the Tribunal was brought to her notice only belatedly. There
was delay in obtaining the certified copy of the award. That was
obtained only after 15 years of passing of the award. That itself
shows that the petitioner was not vigilant in prosecuting the
case. Though she has pleaded that the file was misplaced at the
office of her counsel at Kozhikode, she did not cause an affidavit
to be filed by the counsel or any responsible person attached to
the office of the counsel.
7. The delay occurred was inordinate and excluding the
period for which Covid-19 pandemic was prevalent, it was
reckoned as 4946 days. The explanation stated in the affidavit
filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay
are not satisfactory and sufficient to condone the same. The
dictum relied on by the learned counsel also restrains this Court
to pass an order in favour of the petitioner. Number of days of
&
delay shown in the affidavit is also found incorrect. The
application is liable to be dismissed for the reasons.
In the result, application is dismissed and M.A.C.A is also
dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
MJL
