Karnataka High Court
Shrikant K P @ Bhat vs Nisha Rego on 17 August, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012,
: BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
M.F.A.NO. 6550 OF 2012 (MV)
Between:
Shrikant.K.P @ Bhat,
S/o. Purandar.K.P,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at. C/o. Seethakrishna House,
Gokarna Saw Mill,
Kulai, Mangalore.
... Appellant
(By Shri. Raju Bhat, Advocate)
And:
1. Nisha Rego,
Aged about 44 years,
D/o. Norbert Rego,
Hill view, Behind Mahaveer College,
Moodbidri, Udupi District.
2. National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
I Floor, Nityananda Complex,
Near Bus Stand,
Moodbidri, Udupi District.
... Respondents
*****
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the
Judgment and Award dated: 16/07/2011 passed in MVC No.
298/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkala, partly allowing the
claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2
This MFA coming on for Orders, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 16th July 2011, passed in MVC No. 298/2010, by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkala, (for short, 'Tribunal'), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `6,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for `5,00,000/-, is inadequate.
2. The appellant claims to be aged about 23 years and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 11:00 A.M., on 06-09-2007, when the appellant was driving Maruthi Omni bearing Registration No.KA-19/N- 7091, near Bailadka Krishna Mandira Junction, By- pass Road, Karkala, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of another Maruthi Car bearing No.KA- 19/P-2328, is not in dispute. As per the Wound 3 Certificate at Ex.P4, the appellant has sustained fracture of nasal bone, lacerated wound ½' x ¼'x ½' over the nose, punctured wound ¼' x ¼' over the right infraorbital region. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was shifted to the Spandana Maternity and General Hospital, Karkala, where he took treatment for the accidental injuries.
4. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `5,00,000/- against the Insurance Company and another. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 16th July, 2011. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a global compensation of `6000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation 4 awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
6. Along with the appeal, learned counsel appearing for appellant has filed I.A.I/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 254 days in filing the appeal. The reasons for the delay have been explained at paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A.I/2012, stating that the Tribunal passed the judgment and award on 16th July 2011 granting meagre amount of compensation. After the same was passed, he approached the Trial Court Advocate, regarding the quantum of compensation and then, his Advocate advised him to file an appeal, but due to lack of legal knowledge and illiteracy, he could not approach the Advocate at High Court to file the appeal in time. 5 He is from a remote place of Udupi District and as such he has no contact at Bangalore and he is not too rich to make all the arrangement to file appeal at the earliest time and hence there is some delay in filing the appeal and it is not deliberate but for the bonafide reasons stated above. Further, it is stated that if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, he will be put to great hardship and loss.
7. After perusal of the explanation offered at paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A.I/2012, it is seen that the statements made therein are onmibus in nature and no credibility can be attached to the same. Except mentioning the date of passing the judgment by the Tribunal, not even a single date is mentioned. When there is an inordinate delay of 254 days in filing the appeal, the appellant is bound to explain each day's delay. No convincing or valid reasons are assigned while explaining the delay of 254 days in filing the appeal. Further, the explanation offered for condoning the delay of 254 days does not 6 inspire the confidence of this Court and the same is bald in nature.
8. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of not explaining the delay properly, I.A.I/2012 filed for condoning the delay of 254 days in filing the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE BMV*