IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
SHINE ALIAS KANNAN – Appellant
Versus
N.A. JOSE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay requires valid reasons. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. mere belief in counsel's actions does not justify delay. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. judicial discretion must consider facts over negligence. (Para 6 , 7) |
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.