Subramanya Bhat vs The Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 2898 Kant

                          1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6253 OF 2016 (MV-I)


BETWEEN
SUBRAMANYA BHAT
S/O LATE SADASHIVA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.618, 7TH CROSS
BHUVANESWARINAGAR
DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 023.
                                      ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI VASUDEVAMURTHY B. K., ADVOCATE)

AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
   NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
   REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR
   SUBARAM COMPLEX
   M G ROAD
   BENGALURU-560 001.

2. HARSHA N
   S/O NAGARAJU
   NO.36 AKEB NILAYA,
   AMRUTHANAGAR A-SECTOR
   3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS
   SAHAKARANAGAR POST
   BENGALURU-560 092.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 26.04.2008 NOTICE TO R2
IS DISPENSED WITH)
                             2



     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10TH
JANUARY, 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, VIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

Heard on IA.I of 2016 for condonation of delay of

1612 days in preferring the appeal.

2. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of

application and statement of objections by respondent

No.1 to the same.

3. The appellant has stated in his affidavit that

he is a native of Dakshina Kannada district and he was

residing there with his family. He further submits that

he was taking rest for many years and engaged in

some other family issues. He has also stated in the

affidavit that he has lost contact details of his

advocate. This is the only reason given in the affidavit

regarding the delay in preferring the appeal which is

inordinate to the extent of 1612 days.

4. Exhibit P.3-Wound certificate discloses that he

suffered Bicondylar fracture of left tibia and Abrasion

over the knee. In the affidavit, age of the appellant is

shown as 55 years. The nature of injury suggest that

it could not have prevented him from preferring the

appeal within a reasonable time.

5. On perusal of the affidavit and statement of

objections, I am of the view that above grounds do not

substantiate his plea that he was prevented by

sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the time

prescribed by law.

Accordingly, IA.I of 2016 is dismissed.

Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ARK