Delay in filing an appeal requires sufficient justification; lack of reasonable grounds results in dismissal.

2025:KER:55189 C.S.SUDHA, J.

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

C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in M.A.C.A. No.3998 of 2024 and M.A.C.A. No.3998 of 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2025 JUDGMENT This is an application for condonation of delay of 951 days in filing the appeal filed by the fourth respondent/registered owner of the offending vehicle in O.P.(MV)No.521/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha.

2. In the affidavit it is stated that, after the passing of the Award on 26/10/2022, the application for obtaining a certified copy was filed on 14/08/2024. The certified copy was obtained on 11/09/2024 and the appeal was filed on 19/12/2024. According to the applicant, the delay in filing application for obtaining certified copy was due to a bona fide mistake committed by the counsel appearing for him before the Tribunal. This mistake was noticed on 14/08/2024 only. After obtaining the certified copy, on 09/12/2024, he was intimated of the

2025:KER:55189 receipt of the copy of the Award. He met his counsel on 10/12/2024, who advised him to prefer the appeal. Pursuant to the same, necessary arrangements were made and the appeal was filed on 20/12/2024. Thus, the delay of 951 days in filing the appeal.

3. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 have filed counter affidavits opposing the application for condonation of delay contending that, there are no sufficient reason(s) for condoning the long delay of 951 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent also relies on the dictums of the Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 513 and Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran , 2025 SCC OnLine (SC) 1093.

4. Heard both sides.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, who was the 4^th respondent before the Tribunal, namely, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, that an additional affidavit has been filed by the counsel concerned explaining the delay of two years in filing the application for certified copy. It is pertinent to notice that this affidavit has been filed on 25/06/2025 after the 1^st respondent/claim petitioner and

2025:KER:55189 the 2^nd respondent/driver have filed counter, opposing the prayer for condonation of delay. Therefore, it is clear that the additional affidavit has been filed as an afterthought and as an improvement of the case stated in the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of two years, in even filing an application for getting the certified copy of the Award. A period of two years in filing the application cannot be taken to be a bona fide mistake. Even after receiving the copy of the Award on 11/09/2024, the appeal is not seen filed at the earliest, but it is seen filed on 21/12/2024 only, that is, after a period of more than three months.

In the aforesaid circumstances and in the light of the aforesaid dictums, I find that the reason(s) stated are neither sufficient nor cogent to condone the long delay of 951 days, that is, nearly three years in filing the appeal. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

MACA No.3998 of 2024 In view of the order passed in C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2024, the appeal also stands dismissed.

2025:KER:55189 Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.