Karnataka High Court
Smt Geetha Kumari vs Smt Chimmiri Rajeswari on 12 December, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9773 OF 2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt.Geetha Kumari,
W/o Sadashivan Pillan,
Aged about 40 Years.
2. Gayathri S.Pillai,
D/o Sadashivan Pillai
Aged about 17 Years.
3. Gowthami S.Pillai,
S/o J.Sadashivan Pillai,
Aged about 16 Years.
Appellants No.3 minor,
Represented by his mother
and natural guardian,
Geetha Kumari.
All are R/at No.117,
Lakshmi Complex,
16th Main Road,
BTM 1st Stage,
Tavarekere,
BANGALORE - 560 029. ... APPELLANTS.
(By Sri.K.Vishwanatha, Adv.)
2
AND:
1. Smt.Chimmiri Rajeswari,
W/o Koteshwara Rao,
R/of Manneti Kota Village,
Ulavapadu (M),
Prakasham District
ANDHRA PRADESH - 600 124.
2. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Ongole Praasham District,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. G.Ajaykumar,
S/o Gopalakrishna Pillai,
Aged about 39 Years,
Residing at Mani Building,
8th Main, 4th Cross,
Hongasandra, Begur Road,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
4. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unity Building Annexe,
No.72, Mission Road,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
5. Smt.Ommanamma,
W/o Janardhan Pillai,
Aged about 76 Years,
R/at No.117, Lakshmi
Complex, 16th Main Road,
BTM 1st Stage, Tavarekere,
BANGALORE - 560 029. .. RESPONDENTS.
(By Sri.Gangadhar Sangolli,
Adv. for R-2,
R-1 & R-3 to R-5 - Notice
dispensed with vide
order dated 13.06.2012)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
3
This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Award dated
24.08.2007 passed in MVC No.5710/2004 on the file of the
XVI Additional Judge, MACT, Bangalore City, partly allowing
the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement
of compensation.
This Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Claimants in MVC No.5710/2004 on the file of MACT, Bangalore, have come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein.
2. This appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 1431 days in filing the appeal. Hence I.A.1/2011 is filed seeking condonation of the same. To the said application, counsel appearing for contesting respondent - Insurance Company has filed its objections.
3. Heard the counsel appearing for appellants and as well as respondent - Insurance Company. On going through the affidavit filed in support thereof and statement of objections, it is clearly seen that the claim petition was filed seeking 4 compensation for the death of Sadashivan Pillai in a road traffic accident involving Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-27/U- 9277 and Toyota Qualis bearing No.KA-03/MC-1889. It is seen that the accident has taken place on 01.06.2004 at about 11.45 p.m., and thereafter Claim Petition was filed seeking compensation, which came to be disposed of by Judgment and Award dated 24.08.2007.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that the counsel, who appeared for the claimant before the Tribunal did not inform the disposal of the claim petition and he kept quiet and subsequently he died. Hence the appellant was totally unaware of the claim petition being disposed of, until she applied for certified copy to secure the Judgment and Award in the month of July, 2011. It is her case upto July, 2011, she was totally unaware of the position of the claim petition, which she had filed and infact that is the only ground which is urged to seek condonation of delay of 1431 days in filing the appeal.
5
5. However, the contesting respondent has filed its objections, wherein it has given complete particulars of the proceedings before the Tribunal, which includes the date on which the Claim Petition was filed and when it came to be allowed and subsequent deposit of compensation before the Tribunal and the same being withdrawn by the claimant. Infact in Para 4 of the statement of objections, it is clearly seen that a sum of Rs.7,23,750/- is deposited into the Tribunal on 06.06.2008 vide cheque No.844240 and the said amount is also fully realised in favour of the appellant. If this is to be believed, then the affidavit which is filed in support of the application is false, frivolous, which is filed with sole intention of getting over the delay in filing the appeal. This clearly indicate that the appellants are liars, their intention is to deceive the Court, by their false averment in the affidavit, which should be dealt with strict and firmness.
6. In that view of the matter, the application does not merit consideration and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed. 6
The appellants to pay the cost within 60 days from this day. If cost is not paid, the Registry shall take steps to recover the same through jurisdictional revenue authority as arrears of land revenue.
Sd/-
JUDGE AGV.