Ravunnikkutty s/o Balan Nair v. The National Insurance Company Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937 ## **MACA.No. 3185 of 2015 ()** **-------------------------** AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 510/2006 of M.A.C.T OTTAPPALAM DATED 31-032009 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:-: ------------------------- RAVUNNIKUTTY S/O.BALAN NAIR, PALLATH HOUSE, ANAKKARA P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:-: ------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. EAST FORT COMPLEX, FORT MAIDAN, PALAKKAD - 678 013, BY ITS MANAGER, (NO RELIEF CLAIMED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN OP(MV) 510/2006. HENCE THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL). R BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ M.A.C.A. No. 3185 of 2015 and C.M. Appln. No. 3784 of 2015 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3[rd] day of March, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Anil K. Narendran, J. C.M. Appln. No. 3784 of 2015 is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioner/appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 3185 of 2015, seeking for an order to condone the delay of 2324 days in filing the appeal. 2. The appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 31.03.2009 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 510 of 2015, an application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 28.01.2008. The Tribunal by the impugned award awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- under different heads and directed the third respondent insurer to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal together with interest @ 7% per annum. Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is the subject matter of _M.A.C.A. No. 3185 of 2015 and C.M. Appln. No. 3784 of 2015_ : 2 : challenge in the appeal. 3. The reason, stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay of 2324 days in filing the appeal, reads as follows : “5. Because of the above injuries and fractures I am totally bedridden and I am not able to move even within the four wall of my bedroom. Subsequently I had been undergoing treatment of Paramparya Ayurveda Chikitsa and it continued for more than five years. Since I am the only male member of my family I am not in a position for engaging an advocate for preparation of appeal because of physical and financial difficulties. Finally, this deponent managed to contact a counsel who was an office at Ernakulam. In the meanwhile delay of 2324 days occurred. The delay was occasioned due to the aforementioned reasons. There is no willful laches or negligence on the part of these petitioners in having caused the delay. If he delay is not condoned, I will be put to untold hardship and loss. 4. However, a reading of paragraph 10 of the Award, it would make it explicitly clear that, after the accident the petitioner has continued his employment as Medical Representative, but he _M.A.C.A. No. 3185 of 2015 and C.M. Appln. No. 3784 of 2015_ : 3 : had suffered reduction of income for about Rs.11,000/- in the succeeding year. The relevant portion of paragraph 10 of the Award reads as follows : “10..................................... But the petitioner has no case that he has lost job due to the disabilities sustained in the accident. As per Ext. A13 series, there is only reduction of about Rs.11,000/- in the succeeding year, allegedly due to the injuries sustained in the accident.” 5. We also notice that, as per Ext. A5 wound certificate the injuries sustained by the petitioner are as follows; multiple abrasions face, fracture shaft of ® humerus, contusion ® upper arm, lacerated wound over ® deltoid 8 x 5 cm, ® radial nerve palsy and lacerated wound ® forearm 15 x 8 c.m. In Ext. A12 disability certificate issued in the year 2008, PW1 assessed permanent whole body disability as 31% and disability to his dominant upper limb as 35%. After considering the evidence of PW1, the partial permanent whole body disability was taken as 13% by the Tribunal for assessing disability compensation. The nature of injuries sustained, as borne out from Ext.A5 wound certificate, and the percentage of disability as certified in Ext. A12 _M.A.C.A. No. 3185 of 2015 and C.M. Appln. No. 3784 of 2015_ : 4 : disability certificate would not support the case of the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that, because of the injuries he is totally bed ridden and is not able to move even within the four walls of his bed room. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that, the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application for condonation of delay contain false statement. ## 6. In **Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana [(1995)** **3 SCC 757]** , the Apex Court held that filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evident in a Court of law. The relevant portion of paragraph 38 of the said verdict reads as follows : “38. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by _M.A.C.A. No. 3185 of 2015 and C.M. Appln. No. 3784 of 2015_ : 5 : signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalise or tend to candalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any Court : (2) prejudice or interfere or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) Interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceeding amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceeding not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any Court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence commits criminal contempt of the Court _M.A.C.A. No. 3185 of 2015 and C.M. Appln. No. 3784 of 2015_ : 6 : and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of fase statements and fabricating false evident in a Court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clean and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 : the respondents produced a false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case. This action was found to be an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice. Brother Hansaria, J. speaking for the Bench observed : (At p. 4995, of AIR) 'the stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court's _M.A.C.A. No. 3185 of 2015 and C.M. Appln. No. 3784 of 2015_ : 7 : atmosphere may give vitaility to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceeding; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.'” ## 7. In **Muthu Karuppan V. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi [2011** **(6) SCC 496]** the Apex Court expressed the view that filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. In **Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs. BOC India Ltd. [2016 (1) SCALE 264],** the Apex Court observed that though the observation in **Muthu Karuppan's case** (supra) was made in the context of contempt of court proceedings, the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. _M.A.C.A. No. 3185 of 2015 and C.M. Appln. No. 3784 of 2015_ : 8 : 8. Viewed in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the conduct of the petitioner in filing a false affidavit in support of the application to condone the delay of 2324 days in filing the appeal has to be deprecated in the strongest terms and we do so. Since the affidavit contains no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 2324 days in filing the appeal, we find absolutely no ground to condone the aforesaid delay. Accordingly, the C.M. Application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Sd/- **P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge