N Ganapathi Naidu vs D Kasthuramma
2023 Latest Caselaw 5304 AP

         THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                        C.M.A.No.429 OF 2022

JUDGMENT:

The appellant/ 1st respondent has filed the present Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. Aggrieved by the order

dated 12.05.2022 in I.A.No.203 and 2021 in M.V.O.P.No.227 of

2014 on the file of Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, (in short 'learned

tribunal') which are filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to

condone the delay of 1422 days and the application filed in I.A.No.

204 of 2021 is filed under Order 9, rule 13 read with Section 151 of

C.P.C to set aside the award passed on 08.05.2017 in

M.V.O.P.No.227 of 2014 contending that due to non filing of the

counter, the learned tribunal set exparte on 08.05.2017 and there

was communication gap between appellant and his counsel due to

Covid-19. The learned tribunal after hearing on both the counsel

dismissed the two applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present

C.M.A came to be filed.

2. Heard Sri V. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the

appellants and none appears for respondents, though notices have

been served on the respondents 1 to 3.

3. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant

vehemently reiterated the contentions as urged in the grounds of

appeal and mainly contended that in view of the Covid-19 and the

petitioner is an illiterate he unable to file the counter. But the

learned tribunal went wrong saying that the appellant not

explained the delay for causing to file the applications. In fact, the

appellant has explained the cause in the applications, which

ignored by the learned tribunal. Therefore, the C.M.A is liable to be

allowed.

4. Perused the record.

5. It is the contention of the 4th respondent/ Insurance

Company before the learned tribunal is that the appellant is the

owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. Learned Tribunal also issued

notice to the owner-cum driver and Insurance Company and both

received notices, but the appellant intentionally attended before the

learned tribunal and was set exparte. The 1st respondent only

contested the claim. Therefore learned tribunal dismissed the

applications on the ground that there is abnormal delay in filing

the applications.

6. The claim application is filed in 2014 and the applications

have been filed by the appellant in 2021 i.e after of 7 years in filing

these applications. Therefore the 4th respondent/ Insurance

Company vehemently opposed to allow the impugned applications.

Whereas the learned tribunal held that the notices were served on

the respondents. While the matter was coming up for counters, the

1st respondent i.e appellant herein did not file counter and he was

set exparte on 04.02.2015. Therefore the tribunal proceeding with

trial and after hearing arguments, judgment was delivered on

08.05.2017. After filing execution petition by the claim petitioners,

the appellant came up with two applications. The learned tribunal

points out that there was no Covid-19 in the year 2017 and 2018.

Therefore the cause shown in the affidavit is not believable and

there is enormous delay of 1422 days in filing the applications.

Therefore the learned tribunal dismissed the applications.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

that at the time of accident, the insurance policy was in force and

also the appellant is having valid driving license. Therefore the

appellant had good defence and merits and pleaded that the

appellant is an illiterate and there was communication gap

between him and his counsel. However, since the issue involved in

the claim petition is deserves to be decided on trial only for fair

justice.

8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is

inclined to allow the C.M.A, while setting aside the impugned

orders of the learned tribunal on payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/-

(Rupees two thousand only) payable to the respondents/

claimants, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. It is further directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the

Award amount before the learned Tribunal, within eight (08) weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to meet the ends of

justice. It is made clear that the learned tribunal is directed to

dispose of the claim application as expeditiously as possible, since

the claim is made in 2014 as it is a oldest matter. Both the parties

shall co-operate with the learned tribunal for disposal of the

M.V.O.P at the earliest.

9. With the above direction, the C.M.A is allowed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

___________________________ DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date: 04.11.2023

KK

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

C.M.A.No.429 OF 2022

Date: 04.11.2023

KK