Appeal against insurance compensation was dismissed due to uncondoned 26-day delay in filing.
None; appeal dismissed due to uncondoned 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.
AO 462/2016
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate, for the appellants/claimants.
Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1/insurance company.
Heard learned Counsels of either parties on the delay condonation application and also considered the merits from a bird’s eye view.
This appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation. There is delay of 26 days in filing this appeal. The grounds/explanations for such delay have been disclosed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the accompanying affidavit of Mr. Netrapal, father of the deceased child of around 15 years. It has been deposed that after withdrawal of the decretal amount, learned Counsel of the appellants/claimants before the Tribunal advised them to prefer an appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
I am not satisfied with such grounds. Hence, delay condonation application (CLMA 9313/2016) is rejected. Consequently, this appeal also stands dismissed.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)
10.7.2017
Prabodh
Netrapal
Insurance Company
Servesh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
