Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sheikh Imam S/O : Shaikh on 30 March, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
. ., QIVISIOINAL OFFICE,
' SUJA'|'HA'CO.MPLEX,
P..;3.Ro.Aa_, Hu;R_L1... APPELLANT
AND ~
A 1,"*~«.sHE1+<H IMAM s/0 : SHAIKH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30?" DAY OF MARCH, 2010
BEFORE
HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE RAF/IACCvM::C)i+.A'§\£
MFA NO 20238 _oF 2A:(4)'v1A€C):"(3I\lC) " " I
V. _ I
MISC,€EI.\./'IL.NAO;'1GI):4}$§;'.;'O10A'A '
.
'V I
-.AN--D 1;' V _ '''' _ I%'3§_SVC.CI'.fIVLA.NO:.::1Q_O.;471/20 10 BETwE__N._--
THE NATIONAL INsu'RANcE,c'o.LTD., GULBARGA}'--«BY'vITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, REPREEENTEDT-BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NA_;T1DNAL INSURAN.C.E co. LTD., (wsri. ,s.U'R'j£:s';H.s.GuND1 ADV) ' --='AM1NuDDIN, AGE : 23 YEARS, occ : EX--CLEANER R/O : LALBAHADUR SHASTRY NAGAR, ' j»"'R%s~_..
'M RULE 5°C)F_C*P_C READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PRAYING TO ' STAY THEOPERATION OF THE AWARD/ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR "~..OFFI'CER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORi<MEN'S 100.470/2010 & 100471/2010 are Coming on for Orders ' _AAi:%I§_S_A<Jay, the Court made the foliowingz GANGAVATI, DIST : KOPPAL IN) SHEIKHBASHIRUDDIN, S/O.ABDUL NABISAB HIREMANI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY NO.KA 37~3865, R/O.HOSALLI ROAD, GANGAVATI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL. RES'P'ONj3.E__INT$ THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC, 3:0(T1) OETHE \N'ORKTMIEIN COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE'--;1UDGMENTT..AND O*RDER'=, DATED:30--12~2008 PASSED IN_W~Q.NO.5-,'2008 ON FILE OF=. ' THE COMMISSIONER FOR WO'R§<'E'~4EN COMPENSATION AND LABOUR OFFICER, KOPPAL DI_STR.T_CT_, KOPPAVL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS,i,~.38,56*8/~ 'wITH"T_HE INTVEREVST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FREDM TF:._E DAT'E._'OF'~PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
MISC.CIv:L.N.O.1()o469yf.20.I0~.1'SFILED'151 OF CPC, READ WITH SECTION :50 VOF'*--wr;"'ACT,.,_P'R.Avv-INS TO PERMIT THE APPELLANT. 'II'-!SUR£'.€x1CE«._CQMPA-NYQTQ DEPOSIT THE AWARD AMOUNT BEQF-F_1E..wTHI'SHG!Si'BL'E--TCOEJRT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICEAND'EQU'ITJjYf ' ' 'MISC--.CIvIL;"N,O;IOOATD./2010 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITTLAT'IO_N_ 'Ac:_T*-..PR~AYINO TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 314 DAYSI IN 'FILINC- THE ABOVE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JU_STICE"AND .E(';-.UI'IT_Y. "
iVE_ISC__.CIVIi'Q.NQ.,1004?1/2010 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 COf*1PENSAT--ION, KOPPAL, DIST:KOPPAL IN WC/NF/O5/2006 DATED v_30,lv2'.2008 IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. T'T;:i"Ts MFA and MiSC.Civi¥.NOS.100469/2010, § P5' 'T3 3 U D G M E N T Misc.Civii.No.1004-70/2010 is filed by the learned Counsel for the appellant to condone the deiay of 314 days in filing the appeal cailing in question the order'.',:.:d~ated 30.12.2008 in wc No.5/2008 on the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,_'_ia.ndi.i.:'Labou'i'..up Officer, Koppal District,gKoppVa!..i:iVV.fl-.
2. At paragraiipl-Viifi of accompanying the appEicatio"n¢,.::'itv._is Counsel who appeared received the certified est-ertheiess, forwarded the sameiwith days. The Divisional office at Gulbargagttis s'a.id'itoi0hfave forwarded to the Bangalore Zo_riéz.l Q_fi'ice w'h'ere,___for 124 days the file was misplaced and 'th'er.egaft4er'_~wiie_n papers were furnished to the Hubli iiivisional-7'.jQVffice, were sent to the learned Counsel app4ea.ri'n.g this Court to prepare an appeal. There again, th'e"«--lawver misplaced the papers in his Chamber for 92 days and only when he was removing other files, he noticed this file. It is further stated that the learned Counsei appearing for the appeilant took 16.."d.:a-ys'~~.vto prepare the appeal memorandum and sent it--'for4'a'p1';)~roi;a_gl' and thereafter the Zonal office...,discu-sseiji-:'_jt.hVe"V'_sar:=3e°' regarding draft of the appeal me.mo'rariidu'im 'arid days to return the file to"th'e....Vlearned .Co'uVnsei.-v-...../'(gainsL' ieamed Counsei took;__.1O daVyssi;'ivme~.._to the appeal and sent the same foriyerificaitiohn"aindi;finally the originai draft was approved the deiay of of days delay, there is not afztitr-'e estabiish the fact that for 124 days the'ipapets__'iiviere:':_"_niisp|aced in the Zonal office at Banigaviorey. rrgaterial particulars of mispiacing the fiie, randy who'4.is>r_esponsible for the same, and the dates H 'reievavnty--"are'u:=hnot forthcorning from the affidavit. x in my opinion negligence, inaction and lack of 2 iiybonafidie is attributable to the appeiiant. The explanation Alpffered is far from satisfactory. Sufficient cause is not shown. MEsc.Civi|.No.100470/2010 is accordingly rejected, as a consequence, appeal stands dismissed. Misc.CiviE.No.100469/2010 for permissi_(3:;1.'..'t'tA)""Vdi'e:;i0:s.i'c' and Misc.Civii.No.100471/2010 for stay _are__ reject'e"d.:fa.s *~:
unnecessary in View of the dismissai of the:4apc:'easVI.