JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

Along with FAO-3705-2019 to seek enhancement of the compensation, the appellant has also filed an application i.e. CM-12999-CII-2019, for seeking condonation of delay of 3998 days in filing the appeal.

2. In the application, it is submitted that the appellant was under the impression that the appeal is pending before this Court, as the impugned Award and other relevant documents have been handed over to Sh.Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate. However, when the appellant tried to contact the advocate with respect to the fate of his case, but he failed to contact him. Thereafter, he contacted the present advocate, in order to know about the status of his case. On enquiry, the appellant came to know that earlier, no appeal was filed against the impugned Award and thereupon, the appellant decided to file the appeal before this Court, with condonation application. Further, it is stated in the application that the appellant met the present advocate on 17.10.2018 and only on this account, the delay had taken place. As such, a prayer was made for condonation of delay of 3998 days in filing the appeal.

3. Notice was only issued to the insurance company, which made appearance through counsel and filed reply.

4. In the reply, it is averred that there is inordinate delay of 3998 days in filing the appeal. No cogent reason has been assigned, much less a satisfactory reason, explaining such a long delay, which is nearly of 11 years. The sole ground taken is with regard to the impression built by the appellant about the appeal to be pending, as the documents were handed over to Sh.Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate. Eventually, the appellant found that there was no appeal filed against the impugned Award.

5. Further, it is averred in the reply that the reason assigned does not explain long delay of 11 years. The appellant was required to be vigilant of filing of his appeal. Now, such a ground for condonation of delay, cannot be taken. Therefore, the appellant cannot take advantage of his own act and conduct.

6. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon State of Haryana vs. Rameshwar Kaushil, 2023(4) RCR (Civil) 517. As such, a prayer was made for dismissal of the application for condonation of delay.

7. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

8. At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the delay in filing the appeal, is solely on account of reason as assigned in the application, as the Advocate, to whom the papers were handed over, neither filed the appeal nor apprised the appellant about non-filing of the appeal. It is submitted that delay in filing the appeal is not intentional, much less actuated by malice. In fact, the appeal has been filed for seeking enhancement of the compensation. Also, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that several times, the Courts held that liberal and pragmatic approach is required to be adopted for condoning the delay, particularly, in the circumstances, where the claim is for grant of compensation and examined in the light of legislative intent that the Tribunal has an obligation to assess just and reasonable compensation. Furthermore, it is also submitted that the appellant was an injured person and therefore, there was delay on his part.

9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the insurance company has refuted the claim of the appellant. He submits that from the facts and circumstances of the case, as spelt out from the application, no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. In fact, it is submitted that it is a long delay of 11 years and therefore, substantive right accrues in favour of the insurance company, which as such, cannot be lightly disturbed, while considering only the ground of FAO having filed only for seeking enhancement of compensation, on account of injuries sustained. Thus, it is submitted that delay, as such, cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds.

10. In view of the aforesaid submissions, reference is made to the decision rende