Karnataka High Court
Shivamma W/O. Ramappa vs V Shivashankar S/O. V Yella Naganna on 23 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203
MFA No. 101018 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
M.F.A. NO.101018 OF 2017 (MV-I)
C/W. M.F.A. NO.101019 OF 2017 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.101018 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SHIVAMMA W/O. RAMAPPA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. GADIGANUR, HOSPET TALUK,
BALLARI DIST.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. V. SHIVASHANKAR
Digitally signed S/O. V. YELLA NAGANNA,
by V N BADIGER
Location: HIGH AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
BEARING REGN. NO.AP-21/X-7668,
BENCH
R/O. HUSSAINPURAM POST,
ORVAKAL MANDALAM,
KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P STATE.
2. PULLA REDDY A. FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REGN. NO.AP-21/X-7668,
R/O. 5-393, KOTHAPETA, BETAMCHERLA,
KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A P STATE.
3. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203
MFA No. 101018 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017
HC-KAR
FSKU, H.NO.5-393, KOTHAPETA,
BETAMCHERLA, KURNOOL DISTRICT,
NEAREST OFFICE, THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
STATION ROAD, HOSPET,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.41,280/- TO RS.3,10,000/- BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
HOSPET, DATED 22.05.2010 IN MVC NO.1322/2008, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO. 101019 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
JADIYAMMA W/O. RUDRAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. GADIGANUR, HOSPET TALUK,
BALLARI DIST.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. V. SHIVASHANKAR
S/O. V. YELLA NAGANNA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203
MFA No. 101018 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017
HC-KAR
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY
BEARING REGN. NO.AP-21/X-7668,
R/O. HUSSAINPURAM POST,
ORVAKAL MANDALAM,
KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P STATE.
2. PULLA REDDY A. FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REGN. NO.AP-21/X-7668,
R/O. 5-393, KOTHAPETA,
BETAMCHERLA, KURNOOL,
KURNOOL DISTRICT, A P STATE.
3. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
FSKU, H.NO.5-393, KOTHAPETA,
BETAMCHERLA, KURNOOL DISTRICT,
NEAREST OFFICE, THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
STATION ROAD, HOSPET,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.46,280/- TO RS.3,00,000/- BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
HOSPET, DATED 22.05.2010 IN MVC NO.1325/2008, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203
MFA No. 101018 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
1. The Appellants, who are the Claimants in M.V.C. Nos.
1322/2008 and 1325/2008 respectively, on the file of the Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.),
Hospet have preferred these appeals along with the present
applications i.e. I.A. No. 2/2017 filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay of 2396 days
each in filing the appeals.
2. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has orally opposed the applications by relying upon the
decision in Prakash s/o Byroji Rao (dead) by his L.Rs. V/s
Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another in
MFA.No.8540/2015, dated 12.06.2024.
3. During the course of argument on these applications,
learned Counsel for Appellants submitted that due to ill-health
and financial problems, appellants could not prefer the appeals
within the prescribed period and that the delay in filing the
appeals is bonafide.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203
HC-KAR
4. In Prakash's case referred (supra), the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka has held (paragraph 15) as follows:
15. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra, we are of the
considered view that the appellants have failed to show
sufficient cause to condone the enormous delay of 2537
days. The averments made in the affidavit accompanying
the application for condonation of delay are extremely
vague and do not provide a satisfactory explanation to
condone such an enormous delay. Merely, a higher
compensation is awarded to the lands situated in the
same village subsequently, cannot be the ground to
condone the enormous delay. The condoning of enormous
delay as sought by the appellants is nothing but a revival
of the dead right of the appellants. If such an
application for condonation of delay is entertained, without
any sufficient cause, it would confer a right in favour of
the litigant who is a fence sitter, lacks bonafides and is
not diligent about his rights. That would defeat the object
of law of limitation. In other words, the appellants and
similarly placed persons cannot be allowed to reopen or
revive their right to prefer the appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation on the ground of parity
after a period of nearly 7 years. Allowing the application
would run contrary to the public policy and cause great
injustice to the respondents and it also creates an
avenue for similarly placed persons to approach the Court
as per their whims and fancies. The Court is also
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203
HC-KAR
required to keep in mind the finality of the lis between
the parties while condoning the delay. If Courts start
interpreting the word 'sufficient cause' in an unduly liberal
way even without there being any acceptable
explanation for condoning enormous delay, it would lead to
unsettling the rights of the parties which were settled by
the reference Court long ago. This Court would have
definitely sympathized with the appellants - land losers
in considering their appeal on merits, if they had filed the
appeal within the period of limitation or sufficient cause
was shown for the delay. In the instant case, the
appellants have failed to show sufficient cause to condone
the delay."
5. Coming to the present case, appellants have
preferred these appeals on 14.03.2017, praying for enhancement
of compensation awarded on 22.05.2010 in M.V.C. Nos.
1322/2008 and 1325/2008. Admittedly, there is a delay of 2396
days each in preferring these appeals. The appellants have filed
affidavits in support of the present applications. The relevant
portions of the said affidavits read as under:
"3. That after the Judgment my counsel told me about
the Judgment I was intending to prefer an appeal hence
I requested to obtain certified copy. That due to the
mental shock suffered due to the injuries sustained by
me in RTA on 01-04-2008 and hence due to the
maintenance of the family affairs become critical due to
the severe financial difficulties, as I was unable to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203
HC-KAR
discharge my duties as earlier and was under deep
pressure and was in search of the livelihood to lead my
day to day life and was unable to file an appeal in time
due to critical financial problems as I could not work as
earlier and earn the livelihood as earlier due to the
injuries sustained by me in RTA. As I am a Illiterate
person and also I am not aware of the legal proceedings.
Due to poverty and financial difficulties could not file the
appeal in time. Hence the delay.
4. The handling advocate before the tribunal had
instructed me that I have a good case in appeal and
there are chances of succeeding in the appeal. I also
advised my advocate to apply for the certified copies of
the judgment and award to file an appeal. The advocate
had obtained the certified copies of the judgment and
award and handed over to me, but while cleaning the
house the said certified copy of the judgment and award
were misplaced and after some time the said documents
were found after search in the house. Hence the delay in
filing the present appeal. Therefore, there is a delay of
2396 days in filing the present appeal. That due to
mental shock and due to critical financial conditions. I
was unable to file appeal in time. That the delay in filing
present appeal is not intentional one and the same is
due to unavoidable circumstances."
6. It is the case of the appellants that due to mental
shock suffered on account of the road traffic accident and due to
financial difficulties, they could not prefer the appeals in time. In
addition, they have stated that they had misplaced the certified
copies of the impugned judgment and award, which were handed
over to them, which caused delay in filing the appeals.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203
HC-KAR
7. The perusal of the record reveals that the Appellants
herein had sustained injuries such as fracture of right ulna and
fracture of right radius and other simple injuries. Thereby it
becomes prima facie clear that the injuries said to have been
suffered by the Appellants in the road traffic accident have no
nexus to their alleged "mental shock" as averred in the
affidavits. Further, the Appellants have not produced any medical
record in support of their above contention. It is also relevant to
note that the contents of the affidavits lack necessary particulars
such as period of alleged illness, period of treatment if any, etc.
Thereby the Appellants have failed to come up with a satisfactory
explanation or sufficient cause for inordinate delay in preferring
these appeals. As held in the decision referred supra, if an
application for condonation of delay is entertained without
sufficient cause, it would defeat the object of law of limitation
particularly when the delay is enormous and when the applicant
comes up with extremely vague and lame excuse.
In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203
HC-KAR
ORDER
I.A. No. 2/2017 in both the appeals is dismissed.
Consequently, these appeals stand dismissed as barred by
limitation.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
VB
