Harshad Khan Urf Eshad vs Mohammad Shabbir
2022 Latest Caselaw 2333 Kant

                               1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                          AND
 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9526 OF 2017 (MV)

BETWEEN :

HARSHAD KHAN URF ESHAD
S/O JIYAULLA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O CHANDRE NEW EXTENSION
PANDAVAPURA TOWN
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
PIN-571 434                            ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. RAKSHA KEERTHANA FOR
    SHRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATES)

AND :

1.     MOHAMMAD SHABBIR
       S/O ABDUL KARIM
       MAJOR
       R/AT NO.972/5
       SULTAN ROAD, K.N.PURA
       MYSORE TALUK
       MYSORE DISTRICT
       PIN-570 010

2.     DIVISIONAL MANAGER
       SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
       NO.5/S, 3RD FLOOR
       MONARCH CHAMBER
                               2




      INFANTRY ROAD
      SHIVAJI NAGAR
      BANGALORE-560 001                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    VIDER ORDER DATED 03.01.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS
     DISPENSED WITH)


      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2014, PASSED IN MVC
NO.734/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
JMFC., PANDAVAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

      THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS                DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is presented after lapse of nearly

3 years and to be precise, with a delay of 1089 days.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application

for condonation of delay, it is stated that the deponent had

applied for certified copy of the judgment and award on

27.10.2014 and it was delivered on 13.11.2014. It is

further stated that deponent was suffering from fever and

unable to contact his advocate in Bengaluru. Except this

statement, no cogent reasons are forthcoming for

condonation of delay.

3. In the circumstance, I.A.No.1/2018 for

condonation of delay does not merit consideration and

hence liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly

dismissed. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Yn.