A party's minor status does not automatically justify substantial delays in appeal filing without adequate and convincing evidence.

O R D E R

This application is filed by the petitioner/second claimant to condone the delay of 4069 days in filing the appeal. The appeal is filed by the 2nd claimant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in O.P(MV) No.941 of 1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Vatakara. The reason stated in the application is that the petitioner/appellant, being a minor at the relevant time, was unable to file the appeal. He attained majority only on 18.09.2013, and there was no other major member in his family to look after the affairs of his ailing mother. At the time when the award was passed, the petitioner was a student and was made to believe that he ought to receive the amount awarded by the tribunal. The penurious circumstances of his family compelled him to withdraw the amount of ₹1,02,349/- awarded by the tribunal.

2. According to the petitioner, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side, and therefore he seeks condonation of a delay of 4069 days in filing the appeal.

No counter-affidavit has been filed by the insurance company.

3. There is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The reason stated by the petitioner/appellant is that he was a minor at the time when his father met with the accident and that he attained majority only in the year 2013. Even though the petitioner attained majority on 18.09.2013, the certified copy of the award was applied only on 20.07.2015, and the same was received on 23.07.2015, resulting in a delay of nearly two years after attaining majority.

4. I have considered the averments in the affidavit. No sufficient cause has been stated by the petitioner, for the inordinate delay in filing this appeal. The petitioner does not have a case that his mother/first claimant did not conduct the case properly. The mother, being the natural guardian, had instituted the claim petition for and on behalf of the minor children. She was satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal and, therefore, did not choose to file an appeal challenging the award. The mother, who represented the minor, had taken a conscious decision not to prefer an appeal and was satisfied with the award.

5. The Apex Court in Majji Sannemma vs. Reddy Sridevi and Ors. [2021 KHC 6863] , held as follows:

“............the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further held that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. Each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.”

6. The petitioner failed to provide satisfactory reasons for the excessive and inordinate delay of 4069 days in filing the appeal. The arguement that the petitioner was a minor aged 3 years at the time of accident, cannot be considered as a valid reason to condone the huge delay of 4069 days in filing the appeal. Unless there are valid reasons with supporting documents, this court cannot justify condoning the inordinate delay in