Sufficient cause not shown for condonation of delay.

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the civil miscellaneous appeal before this Court, against the award and decree dated 4.12.1991 in M.AC.T.O.P.No.50 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Pondicherry.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the Deputy Manager of the petitioner (Insurance company) it is averred that the application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree was made on 15.12.1991 without any delay and the copies were made ready on 16.3.1992. It is further submitted that based on the endorsements made on the certified copies of the judgment and decree, the above civil miscellaneous appeal ought to have been filed within 90 days from 16.3.1992, that is, on or before 13.6.1992. A delay of 131 days has occurred in preferring the appeal. It is further submitted that the relevant papers relating to the O.P. and the certified copies of the judgment and decree were forwarded to the Regional Office at Madras for scrutiny by the legal department of the petitioner-Insurance Company, to decide on the question of advisability of filing an appeal. The Managers concerned who had to take a decision on the matter and advise the Divisional Office were not readily available as they were deputed to attend certain policy matters of importance. As such, a decision could not be taken for filing an appeal within the period of limitation. It is further submitted that in a Government undertaking like the petitioner, the administrative delay cannot be avoided for more reasons than one.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, while denying the above averments, it is stated that the respondent claimed Rs.9,50,000 but he had restricted his claim to Rs.5,00,000 due to heavy expenditure towards stamp duty. The tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.5,00,000 as he was a Computer Engineer (Hardware), having studied M.Sc. (Physics) at Madras Christian College and M.Sc.(Engineering) at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. Due to the accident, he is totally disabled and unable to do any work. He has lost his entire future due to the said accident and throughout his life, he is a dependant and there are three attendants looking after his daily routine. Even to-day there is no bowel control or urine control. He further submitted that for movements, his attendants should lift him and put him on the wheel chair and his wheel chair should be attended upon by his attendants for movement as he was unable to even operate the wheel chair. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not properly explained by the petitioner as every day’s delay has to be explained in detail. Further, no valid reason has been given by the petitioner to condone the delay of 131 days. The allegations contained in the affidavit are specifically denied. According to him, there is no reason for condoning the delay and if the delay is condoned, he will be put to great hardship and monetary loss. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Insurance company, that it is a Government undertaking, that it is usual that such administrative delay would occur and the delay has to be condoned. He would submit that the delay has occurred only on account of administrative reasons and that unless the delay is condoned, the petitioner would be put to very great hardship. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that this is a case where there inordinate and unexplained delay, that no reason has been given except stating that it is due to administrative delay and that it cannot be avoided and that it cannot be a valid reason for condoning the delay. He submitted that in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the respondent, who is a Computer Engineer, is totally disabled and unable to do any work due to the accident, the