The court must carefully assess the bona fides of explanations for delay in appeals, and cannot condone delays without sufficient justification.

2025:KER:54926 C.S.SUDHA, J.

--------------------------------------------------------------

C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2025 in M.A.C.A. No.179 of 2025 and M.A.C.A. No.179 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2025 JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 933 days in filing the appeal filed by the claim petitioners in O.P. (MV)No.1084/2018 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Ernakulam.

2. In the affidavit filed by the 1^st applicant/ 1^st claim petitioner it is stated that after the Award was passed on 21/02/2022, the certified copy was obtained on 18/03/2022. She was informed by her lawyer regarding the period within which the appeal was to be filed. However, she was unable to file the appeal within the stipulated time as she was struggling to cope with the loss of her husband and had the responsibility to look after the entire family comprising her two young children and her aged mother. Hence, the delay of 933 days in filing the appeal.

2025:KER:54926

3. The respondent-insurer filed counter affidavit stating that there are no sufficient reason(s) for condoning the delay.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The incident in this case resulting in death of the husband of the 1^st applicant/1^st claim petitioner took place on 19/04/2018. O.P.(M.V) is seen filed in the year 2018 itself, without delay. The impugned Award was passed on 21/02/2022, that is, after a period of nearly four years after the mishap took place. When this aspect was pointed out and the learned counsel asked as to why in such circumstances, the appeal could not be filed within a reasonable time, answered that there was nobody to assist/help the applicants/claimants in taking necessary steps. Moreover, this Court has in some cases condoned delay of even more than 1000 days and so the same approach or the course of action must be adopted in the case on hand also, goes the argument.

6. This Court in some cases did condone delay of even more than 933 days. In all those cases, sufficient reason(s) were shown to condone the delay. Therefore, the argument that as this Court has

2025:KER:54926 condoned even longer delays, in the case on hand also the same course has to be adopted cannot be accepted. (See paragraphs 28 to 30 of the dictum in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC Online (SC) 513.

7. The delay here is 933 days, which is nearly three years.

As held by the Apex Court in Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran , 2025 SCC OnLine (SC) 1093, it is well settled that while considering a plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the Court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the Court may consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning delay. Further, it has been repeatedly emphasised in several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity.

The reason(s) stated in the affidavit are not sufficient to condone the long delay. Therefore, the application for condonation of

2025:KER:54926 delay is dismissed.

MACA No. 179 of 2025 In view of the order passed in C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2025, the appeal also stands dismissed.