The court dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 179-day delay in filing a second appeal against an Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, finding the petitioner company grossly negligent for failing to explain internal processing lags.
Impugned order and second appeal were dismissed for failure to explain excessive delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
I.A. No.1 of 2019
In/and
MACMA No.3226 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
I.A. No.1 of 2019 is filed to condone the delay of 179 days in
filing MACMA No.3226 of 2019 challenging the order and decree dt.30.07.2018 in MVOP No.980 of 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem.
2
the appeal, elapsed before filing of the appeal, is not explained by the petitioner.
MACMA No.3226 of 2019 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.
____________
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
K.LAKSHMAN, J
January 09, 2020.
KTL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 179 days in filing the second appeal can be condoned given the petitioner's gross negligence and lack of explanation for the internal delays.
How to evaluate condonation of delay when an organized private company fails to explain the lapse of four months in reviewing an order and two months in filing the appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner Company
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
K. LAKSHMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
