Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mamidipaka Annapurna vs M/S. Shree Ashapura Cargo Carriers on 25 July, 2025
APHC010585052022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3506]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 451/2022
Between:
1. MAMIDIPAKA ANNAPURNA, W/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU,
NOW AGED 34 YEARS, D.NO. 14-5-16/2, BANOJITHOTA, B.C. ROAD,
GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM
2. MAMIDIPAKA NIRANJAN, S/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, NOW
AGED 13 YEARS, D.NO. 14-5-16/2, BANOJITHOTA, B.C. ROAD,
GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM THE 2ND APPELLANT BEING
MINOR REP. HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN VIZ. 1ST
PETITIONER
3. MAMIDIPAKA NARASIMHA MURTHY (DIED), S/O. LATE
SURYANARAYANA, HINDU, NOW AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, D.NO.
14-5-16/2, BANOJITHOTA, B.C. ROAD, GAJUWAKA,
VISAKHAPATNAM (THE 3RD APPELLANT DIED AND HE WAS NOT
GRANTED COMPENSATION)
4. MAMIDIPAKA APPALARAJU (DIED), S/O. NARASIMHA MURTHY,
NOW AGED 25 YEARS, D.NO. 14-5-16/2, BANOJITHOTA, B.C.
ROAD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM (THE 4TH APPELLANT DIED
PENDING TRIAL AND THE SAME WAS RECORDED BY THE
TRIBUNAL)
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. M/S SHREE ASHAPURA CARGO CARRIERS, REP. BY ITS
DIRECTOR SRI S.RAO, HINDU, AGED NOT KNOWN, BUT MAJOR,
RIO. D.NO. 25-1-17/8, GOPALAREDDY NAGAR, GAJUWAKA,
2
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT
2. THE SREE RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REPRESENTED
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, D.NO. 1-83-
14/2 PLOT NO. 4, SEC. 3, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT
3. DEMUDU BABU, S/O. DEMUDU, HINDU, NOW AGED ABOUT 33
YEARSR/O. KARAKAVARNIPALEM, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT (3RD RESPONDENT IS AMENDED AS PER ORDERS IN
I.A. 874/2015 DATED 15-10-2015) (THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS NOT
NECESSARY PARTY AS NO CLAIM IS MADE AGAINST HIM IN THE
APPEAL)
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be
pleased to beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
under section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the order passed in
M.V.O.P.294/2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents, Claims
Tribunal-cum-XIII), Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka,
Visakhapatnam District dated 8-3-2018
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
condone the delay of 1568 days in filing this MACMA against the judgment
and award in MVOP No.294 of 2012 on the file of on the file of the Chairman,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District dated 8-3-2018 and to pass
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GUDI SRINIVASU
2.
3
The Court made the following:
JUDGEMENT:
I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND M.A.C.M.A.No.451 of 2022 This application is filed seeking to condone the delay of 1568 days in filing present appeal.
2. The present appeal is preferred by appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of deceased. Initially claim was lodged for Rs.20,00,000/- and Tribunal has awarded Rs.5, 87,000/- after appreciating evidence on record. The judgment came to be passed on 08.03.2018. The appeal is preferred with inordinate delay of 1568 days.
3. Heard Sri Katakamsetty Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants and petitioners in this application contended that as the claimants are suffering with poverty and financial issue, the appeal could not be preferred within the limitation.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company contended that the said inordinate delay cannot be condoned and even the affidavit filed in support of the application does not indicate sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
6. Normally, in cases of this nature, considering that the compensation is being determined based on beneficial legislation, this Court would take lenient view in cases of delays. In the present case, as seen from para 6 & 7 of the affidavit filed, except stating that the appellants are prevented from filing the 4 appeal on account of their poverty and financial problems, nothing further is stated or explained. In the absence of any cogent reasons forthcoming explaining such inordinate delay, this Court finds that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
7. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his Lr 1 , in particular, Para Nos.24 to 27 & 35, reads as under:
"24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay.
25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.
26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non- deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While 1 2024 SCC Online SC 489 5 considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the „Sword of Damocles‟ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.
35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case."
8. Further, in H.Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A.Krishnaiah Since deceased by Lrs.2 Judgment, in particular on Para Nos.15 & 16, "15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the 2 2025 SCC Online SC 54 6 bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay."
9. Though learned counsel for the appellant tried to convince the Court by addressing merits of the matter, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits unless the inordinate delay is condoned. The said view is fortified by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgments as referred to above by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. This Court finds that the delay of 1568 days is not properly explained and that the reasons mentioned in Paras 6 & 7 of the affidavit does not constitute to be sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the same.
10. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed and so also the Appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 25th July, 2025 RKS