Karnataka High Court
Rachamma W/O Devindrappa And Ors vs The Executive Engineer Kbjnl, Canal ... on 1 February, 2013
Bench: N.Kumar, H.G.Ramesh
-1- MFA.No.31962/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
M.F.A. No.31962/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. RACHAMMA W/O DEVINDRAPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2. DEVINDRAPPA S/O KALAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL
3. NINGANNA S/O DEVINDRAPPA
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
4. MALLAMMA D/O DEVINDRAPPA
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF RAJAPUR COLONY
GULBARGA- 585 101. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL & SRI V.S. REDDY, ADVS.)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KBJNL CANAL ZONE, CHIGARHALLI CAMP
R/O CHIGARHALLI
TQ. JEWARGI
DIST: GULBARGA- 585 101
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT
INSURANCE DEPARTMENT
BANGALORE- 01. ...RESPONDENTS
-2- MFA.No.31962/2012
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.04.2010 PASSED IN MVC
NO.890/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN)
AND MACT AT GULBARGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY N.KUMAR
J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. The claimants are parents, brother and sister of the deceased Gangadhar who died in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The claimants preferred claim petition claiming compensation. A sum of Rs.2,95,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. has been awarded by the Tribunal. The award was passed on 23rd April 2010. The appeal is preferred on 3rd October 2012. There is a delay of 791 days in preferring this appeal. An application is filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is stated by the first appellant that after passing of the judgment and award by the Tribunal, her counsel informed her that she has a good -3- MFA.No.31962/2012 case on merits to prefer appeal for enhancement of compensation. However, she could not prefer the appeal in time due to poor financial condition after the sad demise of the sole earning member of the family and also due to lack of legal knowledge. Therefore, it is contended that the delay is not intentional.
3. The averments made in the affidavit shows that how casual the appellants are in seeking condonation of the delay. Appellants had engaged a counsel, conducted the case before the Tribunal and compensation is awarded. Their counsel told them that a meager amount is awarded and a good case is there to prefer an appeal. They have withdrawn the compensation awarded. To prefer an appeal, no court fee need to be paid, except fixed fee of Rs.15/-. Therefore, poor financial condition is not a reason for not preferring the appeal. Insofar as lack of legal knowledge is concerned, from what is stated above, the appellants knew that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and they have a right of -4- MFA.No.31962/2012 appeal and there was lawyer by the side of the appellants, ready to assist them. All the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application do not constitute a ground to condone the inordinate delay. Probably the appellants were satisfied with the award passed. Therefore, they had kept quite and probably at the instigation of someone, now they want to take a chance before this Court. It is impermissible because, the appellants were not diligent and the cause shown to condone the inordinate delay of 791 days, in the affidavit do not enable them to get the delay condoned. No merit, The application for condonation of the delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BNS