Filing an appeal with a Xerox copy of the decree is improper and constitutes a lack of clean hands.

1. In anaccident, which occurred on 06.09.2007, the Review Petitioner/claimant sustained injuries. He made a claim in M.C.O.P. No.3297 of 2007, before the MACT (IIIrd Small Causes Court), Chennai, for Rs.6,00,000/-. The Appellant-Insurance Company, First Respondent herein, with the leave of the Tribunal, disputed the manner of accident and further submitted that the drier of the vehicle, bearing Registration TN-09-AF 7890, insured with the Appellant, did not posses a valid and effective licence. Without prejudice to the above, they also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. However the Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, held that the driver of the above said vehicle, was responsible for the accident and quantified the compensation of Rs.2,96,000/- with interest. For sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are described in the manner stated before the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. Aggrieved by the award, the Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, contending inter alia that the Tribunal ought to have held that the Respondent/claimant was solely responsible for the accident. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have disbelieved the evidence let in PWs.2 and 3, Doctors. The quantum of compensation is also disputed. Along with an Appeal, the Appellant has filed M.P. No.1 of 2010, to dispense with the production of the copy of the judgment and decree, made in M.C.O.P. No. 3297 of 2007, dated 11.09.2009, on the file of the Claims Tribunal, contending inter alia that,---

“5. I submit the judgment in M.CO.P. No. 3297 of 2009 was pronounced on 11.09.2009, but the original judgment and decree was misplaced and the same could not be traced despite best efforts. Hence, the Appeal was filed using Xerox copy of the judgment and decree. The non-production of original copy of the order is not a wanton one and it was for bona fide reasons only.

6. I submit since the original order could not be traced the Appeal filed was belatedly sent to the Regional office with an opinion to prefer Appeal only on 14.01.2010. Hence, the Appeal was filed on 01.02.2010 with delay of 54 days due to the delay on the part of the counsel appeared in the Lower Court and also for administrative reasons.”

3. The Appellant/Insurance Company has further submitted that due to coercion, the entire award amount has been deposited in the Claims Tribunal and that the Petition to withdraw the amount was pending for orders. In those circumstances, they have prayed for a direction to dispense with the production of original certified copy of the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P. No. 3297 of 2007, dated 11.09.2009, on the file of the Claims Tribunal. On the basis of the above said averments, this Court has passed an order, dated 09.02.2007, dispensing with the production of the copy of the judgment and decree. Thereafter, an Application in M.P.No. 2 of 2010 to condone the delay of 54 days, in filing the Appeal came up for hearing on 23.03.2010. On the basis of the averments in the supporting Affidavit, this Court passed the following order.

“This Petition is to condone the delay of 54 days in filing the C.M.A.Sr.No.10216 of 2010. The Appeal is challenging the quantum of the award of Rs.2,96,000/- for the injuries sustained by the Respondent. According to the deponent, the judgment in M.C.O.P. No. 3297 of 2007 was pronounced on 11.09.2009. But the judgment and decree were misplaced. However, the Court by order dated 09.02.2010 in M.P. No.1 of 2010, granted leave to prefer the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, without production of the original copy of the decree. It is further stated that there was some delay in seeking opinion from the learned counsel, who was appearing in the lower Court. As the quantum of compensation is said to be exorbitant, this Court. deems fit, that the matter has to be adjudicated on merits. Delay in filing is explained and I am satisfied with th