Karnataka High Court
Shakuntala Shakkubai vs Yamannappa Yamanoor Nayak on 8 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.No.101016/2021(MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . SHAKUNTALA SHA KKUBAI,
W/O LATE MALLES H @ MALLAPPA ,
AGE. 35 YEARS , OCC. HOUSEHOLD ,
2 . KUMARI PAVITRA D/O. LATE MALLES HI MALLA PPA ,
AGE: 17 YEARS , OCC: STUD ENT,
3 . YOGESH S/O LATE MALLESHI @ MALLAPPA,
AGE: 15 YEARS , OCC: STUD ENT,
4 . SHANTAMMA W/O PANDAPPA,
AGE: 60 YEARS , OCC: HOUS EHOLD,,
5 . PANDAPPA CHAVA N S/O, LACHAMAPPA,
AGE: 65 YEARS , OCC: NIL,
APPELLANTS NOS .2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
U/G OF THEIR NAT URAL M OTHER I.E APPELLANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/ O K UNIKERE TANDA ,
TQ. AND DIST: K OPPA L .
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.M.AMAREGOUDA , ADVOCAT E)
AND
1 . YAMANNAPPA @ YAMANOOR NAYAK,
S/O BHEEMAPPA N AYAK,
AGE: 44 YEARS , OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY.
2
NO. KA-01/AE- 3555,
R/O. HOSA LLI , T Q: AND DIST: K OPPAL-583234.
2 . SUHEL
S/O ABD UL RAHAMAN,
AGE 55 YEARS , OCC: OWN ER OF LORRY
NO. KA-01/AE- 3555,
R/O 78/ 3D , MILAGHATTA, 2 N D CROS S,
DURUGAMMAN KERE, MILAGHATTA, S HIMOGA,
TQ.AND DIST: SHI MOGA-577201.
3 . THE MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERA L INSURAN CE CO. LTD.,
S.S. II ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 .
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.NAGA RAJ C.KOLLOORI ADVOCATE F OR R3)
(R1 AND R2- NOTI CE DIS PENSED WI TH)
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER S ECT ION
173(1) OF MOT OR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, PRAYING T O ALLOW
JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2013 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, AT KOPPAL IN M.V.C.No .83/2011 AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE ABOVE
APPEAL, IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, THE
COURT , D ELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and award dated
03.10.2013 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Addl.
M.A.C.T., Koppal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC
No.83/2011, this appeal is filed by the
appellants/claimants.
2. There is a delay of 2265 days in filing appeal. IA
No.1/2021 is filed seeking for condonation of delay.
Sri.M.Amaregowda, learned counsel for
claimants/appellants submits that instant appeal was filed
after disposal of appeal filed by insurance company
challenging the very same award in MFA No.100114/2014
disposed of on 17.11.2020. It was submitted that appeal
filed by insurer was challenging award of Tribunal on the
ground that deceased - lorry driver was driving it without
driving licence. Appeal was not filed challenging quantum
of compensation and therefore, award was not confirmed
by this Court insofar as quantum. It was submitted that
as claimants are having good case on merits, he seeks for
condonation of delay.
3. On the other hand, Sri.Nagaraj C. Kollori, learned
counsel for respondent/insurer submits that there is
suppression of insurance appeal in which claimants had
entered appearance, contested and after disposal of
insurer's appeal, claimants have filed this appeal and that
too after enormous delay of 2265 days and there are no
good or sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Learned
counsel submitted that vide order dated 17.11.2020
passed in MFA No.100114/2014, claimants have sought to
justify impugned judgment and award and they were
estopped from questioning the same in this appeal.
Claimants are blowing hot and cold against impugned
award and sought for dismissal of application.
4. From above submissions, the point that arises for
consideration is:
"Whether claimants have made out
good or sufficient grounds for
condonation of delay."
5. Admittedly, award was passed on 03.10.2013.
Thereafter, insurer had filed appeal in MFA
No.100114/2014.
6. On service of notice, claimants entered
appearance in the said matter. Appeal was pending from
the year 2014 to 2020, disposed on 17.11.2020. As
claimants had entered appearance in the said appeal, it
cannot be stated that they are unaware of disposal of
their claim petition or about their right to file appeal,
especially as they were instructed by competent counsel.
In the affidavit filed in support of application, claimants
have not disclosed date of appearance in insurer's appeal.
There is also no assertion that they did not have
assistance of competent counsel or that they were mis-
lead /mis-understood instructions of counsel.
7. Under the circumstances, as claimants were well
aware of disposal of their claim petition and period of
limitation for filing appeal, there are no good or sufficient
reasons made out for condonation of delay. Especially, as
delay is 2265 days from date of disposal of claim petition
and nearly a year after disposal of appeal filed by
insurance company. Hence, IA No.1/2021 is dismissed.
Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
H MB
