Manjunath Tanthri vs Nisha Rego on 16 January, 2013

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manjunath Tanthri vs Nisha Rego on 16 January, 2013

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

                               -1-



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013

                           BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA

                  M.F.A.NO.6231/2012 (MV)


BETWEEN:

Manjunath Tanthri
S/o Jawaram Tanthri
Aged about 34 years
Residing at: Nadumane,
Badaga yeda padavu,
Mangalore,
Udupi District - 574 320                      ... Appellant

(By Sri Raju Bhat, Advocate)


AND:

   1. Nisha Rego
      Aged about 44 years
      D/o Norbert Rego
      Hill View, Behind Mahaveer College,
      Moodbidri, Udupi District - 574 227.

   2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
      1st Floor, Nityananda Complex,
      Near Bus Stand,
      Moodbidri, Udupi District - 574 227.
                                          ... Respondents

(By Sri A.M.Venkatesh, Advocate for R2
R1-Notice dispensed with)
                                -2-



      This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated 16.7.2011 passed in
MVC.No.443/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Additional MACT, Karkala, 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

The claimant in MVC.No.443/2010 on the file of MACT, Karkala, filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein. However, since this appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 246 days, IA.I/2012 is filed seeking condonation of the same.

2. Heard the counsel for appellant on IA.I/2012 and the affidavit filed in support thereof, wherein it is stated that claimant is from a remote place of Udupi District, hence he could not be in constant touch with the counsel conducting his case at Bangalore. In that view of matter, there is delay in communication of the date of judgment and award to him, which has resulted in filing of appeal with the aforesaid delay. -3-

3. On going through the affidavit, it is clearly seen that claimant does not say when the counsel for him before the Tribunal informed him regarding the disposal of claim petition, when certified copy was applied for and when he instructed his counsel to file appeal, are not properly reflected therein. In the absence of acceptable reason, the inordinate delay of 246 days cannot be condoned. Even otherwise, on going through the judgment impugned it is seen that for a minor injury suffered in the road traffic accident, compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.5,000/- appears to be just and proper. In that view of matter, even if delay is condoned and appeal is taken up for admission no grounds are made out to enhance the same. Hence, application filed seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE nd/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court