IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY M.F.A No.5968 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
H.N. Ramanna, S/o. Nanjappa 45 years, R/a. in front of Goutham School, Ganesh nagar, C.R. Patna Town, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District 573 203.
(By Sri.Y.S. Murugendran, Advocate) AND:
1. Nanjaiah, Major, S/o. Giddaiah, Koramangala village, Dudda Hobli, Hassan Taluk & Dist.573 203 (owner of the lorry Bearing No.KA-01/B-4436) 2. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz, B.M. Road, …Appellant Near Sri Krishna Hotel, Hassan – 573 203.
(By Sri. S. Srishaila, Advocate for R-2;
…Respondents R-1 – notice dispensed with vide order dated:10.08.2015) **** This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 19.07.2010 passed in M.V.C.No.48/2008 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, MACT, Channarayapatna, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This M.F.A. coming on for Further Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The matter is called again in the third round in the afternoon. There is no representation in the matter from the appellant’s side. Neither the appellant nor his counsel is present.
2. Perused I.A.No.1/2013 filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 997 days in filing this appeal.
3. In the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A.No.1/2013, the appellant has stated that after the accident, he suffered very much financial difficulty and had handed over the relevant order copy to one of the Advocates at Bengaluru and was under an impression that the Advocate has preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. Only few days before the filing of this appeal when he contacted his previous Advocate, he learnt that no appeal has been filed and thereafter the present appeal is filed. It is for the said reason there was delay in filing the appeal which is beyond his control.
4. The said reason shown by the appellant clearly goes to show that even after he is said to have submitted the relevant certified copy of the order to his alleged Advocate for preferring the appeal, still, he (appellant) did not remain in contact with the said Advocate. On the contrary, under some impression presuming himself that the appeal has been filed, nearly for three years, the appellant kept quiet without making any inquiry with his Advocate about the filing of the appeal by him. Thus, the appellant himself in the sworn Affidavit has shown that he was not diligent in following up the said matter with his counsel and ensuring that an appeal has been filed.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and another Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2013(4) KCCR 3430 (SC), was pleased to observe as below:
“The statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to burry all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party’s own inaction, negligence’ or latches.”
It was further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the same case that, “Sufficient cause” means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In case of a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No Court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay be imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the Court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
Thus, when the appellant himself was not diligent and interested in ensuring the filing of the appeal within the prescribed time, on the other hand, has kept quiet nearly for three years under some false impression presuming by himself, the same cannot be said that the appellant was bona fide and diligent in prosecuting his remedy in the appellate Court. No doubt the Motor Vehicle compensation concept is a social welfare concept and should be construed liberally, however, in the guise of liberality, one cannot ignore the lethargic attitude exhibited by the claimant for no valid reasons.
6. In the instant case, a perusal of the order sheet would go to show that even after filing of this appeal, for not proceeding further with I.A.No.1/2013 filed by the appellant, this Court by order dated 04-04-2018 had dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant filed I.A.No.2/2019 for recalling the said order dated 04-04-2018 which was also with a delay of 280 days. The appellant filed one more application, I.A.No.1/2019 seeking condonation of the said delay caused in filing the recalling application i.e. I.A.No.2/2019. Both these I.As. came to be allowed by this Court on 13-02-2019.
7. Inspite of the I.A. under consideration earlier dismissed for not appearing in the matter and subsequently getting the said order recalled, that too, by making the application with a further delay of 280 days, the appellant has continued his attitude of not persuading the matter having remained absent thereafter also. Though the said aspect of non- appearance in the matter and suffering an earlier order of dismissal on 04-04-2018 and getting the same recalled with a delay of 280 days cannot be necessarily a matter to be considered for disposal of I.A.No.1/2013, still, independent of this subsequent development also, as observed above, the appellant has not shown any convincing and satisfactory reasons to condone the delay of 997 days in preferring this appeal. As such, I.A.No.1/2013 is dismissed as devoid of merit. Consequently the appeal also stands dismissed as not maintainable as barred by limitation.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*