N.P. Gupta, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 14.5.2001 on 13.9.2001. The Registry has reported the appeal to be barred by 30 days. The appeal was not accompanied by the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the same was filed subsequently on 22.2.2002. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.4.2002 notice of the application was ordered to be issued. However, after service, the matter came up for consideration on 6.3.2003, on which time, it was found that the application is completely bereft of particulars of facts. However, learned Counsel for the appellant sought indulgence by seeking adjournment for three weeks. Thereafter, an additional application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on 6.3.2003.
3. A perusal of the subsequent application shows that though the appellant has purported to have explained the delay between obtaining certified copy and filation of appeal to be on account of official proceedings and correspondence. But then a perusal thereof shows that maximum part of the time was consumed by the dealing clerk as appears from paras 5, 11 and 13 of the additional application under Section 5 of the Limitation. Act. Suffice it to say that lethargy of the clerk by simply sitting tight over the matter even after the limitation had run out can hardly constitute any sufficient cause entitling the appellant to seek condonation of delay. It is high time that the appellant should tune up its administration, and get relieved of such lethargic elements so as to show some respect to the legal procedure, and law of limitation.
4. By the way, I have perused the impugned award. The deceased in the present case was 55 years of age, whose dependence has already been assessed on lower side @ Rs 4,000/- per month for a big family of ten persons out of which, unfortunately, one has expired during pendency of the appeal. An award of Rs. 3,70,000/- has been made, which can hardly be said to be excessive.
5. Likewise, with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the relevant material having bearing on issue No. 1 as well and it is clear that there is eye-witness to depose that the roadways bus was being driven rashly, and negligently, which hit the victim, who was with his bicycle, and who unfortunately expired. Though, the driver has appeared in the witness box, but then he has simply disowned any accident to have taken place and has simply deposed that the victim fell on the ground, and might have received the injuries by some stone. Likewise, the driver has also deposed that the bicycle was got damaged not by being run over by the bus, but on account of its falling on the stones.
6. Suffice it to say that whatever version has been deposed by the driver, has not been pleaded in the written statement. The relevant averments has simply been denied without giving out any parallel version, as to how the accident occurred.
7. learned Counsel for the appellant had shown me the post mortem report, which clearly shows that the deceased had fracture of right parietal and occipital bone of the skull having 7' long depressed cerebral membrane. Likewise, the deceased had fracture of four ribs on the side of the chest. This clearly negatives the version as deposed by the driver.
8. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court even on the question of negligence also cannot be said to be vitiated.
9. The obvious result is that even if the delay is not condoned, it cannot be said that any substantial failure of justice would occur to the appellant.
10. Resultantly, I do not find any sufficient cause to have been made out for delay in filing the appeal.
11. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, dismissed, and as a necessary consequence, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.