A litigant must demonstrate reasonable diligence in seeking justice; mere belief in counsel's actions does not suffice as sufficient cause to condone lengthy delays.

O R D E R

This application is filed by the petitioner in OP(MV)

No.451/2002 to condone the delay of 2916 days in filing the appeal. The appeal is filed by the claimant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in O.P(MV) No.451 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Irinjalakuda.

2. The reason stated in the application is that the petitioner/appellant, an unmarried person residing with his mother, was under the bona fide impression that the counsel who conducted the case before the trial court had already filed the appeal and was conducting the same on his behalf, and he was so informed as well. According to the petitioner, he had to undergo 13 hours long surgery, having totally disfigured his face and other severe injury and he is physically and mentally weak. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side, and therefore he seeks condonation of a delay of 2916 days in filing the appeal.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the third respondent-insurance company stating that the petition is not maintainable. It is stated that no valid reasons have been stated as to how such a long delay of eight years have happened and no substantial reason is given to condone such an enormous delay in filing the same. It is stated that the award was passed on 08.04.2011 and the stamps were called for on 19.04.2017 and produced on 20.04.2017, and the award was received on 21.04.2017. The appeal ought to have been filed on 07.07.2011. It is also stated that the reason stated in the affidavit that he was under the impression that his counsel had already filed an appeal is not a valid reason and is not sustainable.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent.

5. There is a long delay of eight years in filing the appeal, and no valid and satisfactory reasons have been stated by the petitioner. The reason stated is that the petitioner, an unmarried person residing with his mother, was under the bona fide impression that the counsel who conducted the case before the trial court had already filed the appeal and was conducting the same on his behalf, and he was so informed as well. Even if the said contention is accepted at face value, the explanation offered is vague and lacks material particulars. The petitioner has not specified the date on which he allegedly received such information, or the steps, if any, taken by him during the long interregnum to verify the status of the appeal. There is no explanation as to why he remained silent and inactive for nearly eight years without making any enquiry with the counsel regarding the progress of the case. No sufficient cause has been stated by the petitioner for the inordinate delay in filing this appeal.

6. 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