The court must prioritize establishing 'sufficient cause' for inordinate delay before examining the merits of the appeal; liberal interpretation of limitation does not permit the condonation of gross, unexplained delays.

ORDER

The above application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act., to condone the delay of 1864 days in filing the appeal, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1076 of 2014, dated 13.06.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The petitioner is the claimant and he filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1076 of 2014, seeking compensation for the disability suffered in an accident occurred on 28.09.2013. The family members of the petitioner/appellant/claimant have also filed claim petitions seeking compensation for the death of Rathina Sabapathy and for the disability sustained by others in M.C.O.P.Nos.1073, 1074, 1075, 1077 and 1078 of

2014. The first respondent had remained ex-parte.

3.The second respondent/insurer filed counter statements and contested the claim petitions. The learned Special District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed a common order, dated 13.06.2017, granting compensation to the claimants and the petitioner herein was awarded with compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and costs. Challenging the impugned award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1076 of 2014, the claimant has preferred the present appeal along with the above application to condone the delay of 1864 days in filing the said appeal.

4. The case of the petitioner, as canvassed in the delay condonation petition, is that he had undergone surgery and thereafter, due to the spread of COVID-19, the appeal could not be preferred within time; that he was unable to contact his Advocate for filing the appeal and that subsequently, with the assistance of his son, he approached the Advocate at Madurai and handed over the case bundle for filing the appeal; that owing to his advanced age also, he could not file the appeal within the stipulated period; that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No.3 of 2020, directed exclusion of the COVID period for the purpose of computing limitation; that there has occurred a delay of 1864 days in filing the present appeal and that therefore, the delay is liable to be condoned.

5.The second respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and further contended that the delay of each and every day has to be satisfactorily explained; that the petitioner has made only vague averments in the affidavit; that the petitioner himself has admitted that he was not aware of the proceedings in M.C.O.P.No.1076 of 2017, against which the present appeal has been preferred; that the award was passed on 13.06.2017, whereas the petitioner has stated that he underwent surgery and later, due to the spread of COVID-19, the appeal could not be filed in time; that the further contention of the petitioner that he had not followed the proceedings for more than seven years would itself show the enormous delay and that absolutely no proper explanation has been offered for the said huge delay; that the petitioner has failed to explain the delay of 1864 days in filing the appeal and that therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankargir Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court expressed its dismay over the manner in which the High Court had con