Guddati Bagyamma vs K.Anuradha
2022 Latest Caselaw 3019 Tel

            HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                        I.A.N o.2 of 2022 &
                     M.A.C.M.A.No.166 OF 2022

JUDGMENT:

01. This appeal is preferred by the appellants-

claimants aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2013 passed in

MVOP No.863 of 2011 by the Motor Vehicles Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District (Fast Tract

Court) at Khammam, seeking enhancement of

compensation.

02. I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed seeking to condone the

delay of 2681 days in presenting the appeal.

03. It is stated in the said application that MVOP

No.863 of 2011 was filed by mother-in-law and children of

the deceased Narapati Sanjeeva Rao, who died in a motor

vehicle accident occurred on 19.05.2011, seeking

compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. The Court below vide

order dated 30.08.2013, awarded a compensation of

Rs.4,50,000/- to appellants-petitioners 2 to 4 only. It is

further stated that due to the death of her daughter and

son-in-law, the 1st appellant could not prefer the appeal in

time and thus, the delay of 2681 days has occurred i.e.,

nearly seven years four months.

04. The 2nd respondent-National Insurance

Company Limited has filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is

stated that the 1st petitioner-appellant could not contact her

counsel in time cannot be accepted as now-a-days high

technology is available and one can communicate with each

other in a matter of minutes. In support of his contention,

learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the

Apex Court in Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development

Authority and another v Gopi chand Artejai, whereunder the

Apex Court has held that inordinate and unexplained delay

cannot be condoned.

05. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners

contended that even the mother-in-law is also entitled for

compensation and that since the Court below has awarded

meager amount of compensation to appellants 2 to 4, the

appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation,

but approached this Court with delay of 2681 days, which is

neither intentional nor wanton.

06. Perused the material available on record and on

considering the submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants, this Court is of the view that

the appellants had approached this Court with abnormal

delay of seven years four months. This Court is not satisfied

with the reasons explained by the appellants for the

abnormal delay.

07. In view of the same, I.A.No.2 of 2022 is

dismissed. Consequently, M.A.C.M.A.No.166 of 2022 is

also dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

__________________________ SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

Date: 23.06.2022 rkk

i AIR 2019 SC 1423