The court upheld that sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be demonstrably bona fide and not merely the result of administrative negligence, rejecting the 629-day delay in filing the appeal.

ORDER:

Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

We have heard Mr.Maneesh, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) appearing for the petitioners/appellants and Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The appellants filed the present appeal aggrieved by the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 05-05-2023 in M.V.O.P.No.1871 of 2018, in favour of the respondent (claimant) for a sum of Rs.87,22,978/- towards sufferance of 100% functional disability.

3. The present Appeal was filed on 09-06-2025 along with an application (I.A.No.2 of 2025) seeking condonation of a delay of 629 days in filing the Appeal. The parties have filed their respective affidavits in the I.A. The respondent who filed counter affidavit strongly objecting the condonation of delay.

4. In the present IA, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the Tribunal passed an Award on 05-05-2023, whereas Copy Application for Certified Copy of the judgment and decree was made on 02-09-2023, which is after 4 months of the judgment, that certified copy of the judgment and decree was made ready on 29-09-2023, which is within one month, thereafter the learned Standing Counsel sent the file to the Personal Officer of the TSRTC on 20-10-2023, who had taken approximately one and half month to send the file to the Legal Cell for obtaining necessary opinion, and after instructions from the Head Office, the then learned Standing Counsel received the file to draft grounds of Appeal in December, 2023.

5. It is further stated that the then learned Standing Counsel tendered his resignation in the month of September, 2024, nearly after 9 months, thereafter the file was sent to the newly appointed Standing Counsel in the month of September, 2024, who drafted the grounds of Appeal.

6. It is further contended that in the said process, there is a delay of 629 days in filing the Appeal, and that the said delay is neither wilful nor wanton, but on account of administrative delay.

7. On the other hand, Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent filed counter affidavit to the IA. While denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation petition by the petitioners/appellants, contended that after passing of the order and decree on 05-05-2023, even after lapse of more than one year, as the petitioners have neither complied with the order and decree nor filed any Appeal, but the claimant filed E.P.No.345 of 2024 on 04-07-2024 and the Tribunal issued notice to the J.DRs. on 25-09-2024 and after service of notices, the Corporation filed vakalatnama on 28-11-2024. The matter was adjourned to 10-01-2025 for filing counter by the Corporation.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the matter underwent adjournments on 3 occasions on administrative reasons and later the matter was adjourned to 23-04-2025 for filing counter, on which date, the petitioners have neither filed counter affidavit nor there was any stay order even after lapse of 140 days. Therefore, the Tribunal adjourned the matter to 27-06-2025 and directed the J.DRs to pay costs of Rs.65,000/-.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that without complying with the docket orders passed on 23-04-2025 directing the J.DRs to pay costs of Rs.65,000/-, th