AO/392/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 3044 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures
                                      AO No. 392 of 2022
                                      Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Present Mr. Mohd Azim, counsel for the appellant.

Present Mr. Himanshu Aswal, proxy counsel for Mr. Navnish Negi, counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.

2. Present appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 06.06.2022 passed by 1st A.D.J./M.A.C.T., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 400 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant/claimant by awarding the compensation of ` 21,64,090/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

3. There is delay of 56 days in filing the appeal.

4. A Delay Condonation Application (IA 1 of 2022) has been filed along with the affidavit of the father of the appellant/applicant.

5. On the query of this Court, the counsel for the appellant/applicant would submit that the appellant/claimant is not in a position to come in person in the Court to file the affidavit, therefore, the same has been filed by him through his father. In the affidavit, it is stated that the delay was caused due to the reasons that the appellant/applicant did not have the money to approach the Court and when he got the money, he filed the same.

6. Perusal of the record would reveal that it is not the case of the appellant/applicant that he is mentally incapable of filing the affidavit, therefore, there is no satisfactory or reasonable explanation given in the Delay Condonation Application for condoning the delay.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgment has held that only if the reasons are genuine and acceptable, then alone, the delay is to be condoned and not otherwise. It is well considered principle of law that while condoning the delay, the Courts have to consider the genuinity of the reasons furnished by the person seeking condonation of delay.

7. In view of the fact that the appellant/applicant could not establish any acceptable reason for the purpose of condoning the delay, this Court is not inclined to consider the delay condonation application. The delay condonation application is hereby rejected.

8. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 10.10.2023 Akash