IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY MFA No.5901 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
Dinesh, S/o.Chandregowda, Aged about 24 years, Resident of Kowshika Village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk-573 201. .. Appellant ( By Sri.Chethan B., Advocate ) AND:
1. Venkatesh, S/o Javaregowda, Major, Resident of Saathenahalli, Hassan Taluk-573 201.
2. The Manager, The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Bus Stand Road, P.B.No.112, Hassan-573 201. .. Respondents ( By Sri K.Sridhara, Advocate for R-2, Respondent No.1 – served) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and award dated:15.3.2012, passed in MVC.No.401/2007, on the file of Addl.District Judge & Member, MACT II, Hassan, dismissing the claim petition for compensation.
This MFA coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again.
None appear for the appellant.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that the present appeal is of the year 2013 and that even after submitting that he would file a better affidavit seeking condonation of delay, the appellant has not evinced any interest in filing a better affidavit. As such, considering the age of the appeal, which is of the year 2013 and the fact that the appellant is not evincing any interest in filling any better affidavit, it is felt that there is no point in waiting any further. As such, the matter is to be proceeded with the available materials.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant also has not appeared and submitted his arguments on IA.1/2013 filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 757 days in filing this appeal.
4. Perused IA.1/2013 and the objections filed to it by the respondents.
In the affidavit accompanying the application, the appellant has stated that since he was suffering from severe health problem, he could not able to contact his advocate who appeared for him in the Tribunal. As such, when he contacted his advocate belatedly, he came to know that his claim petition came to be dismissed and same is the reason for the delay in preferring this appeal.
5. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in its statement of objections has denied the reasons shown by the appellant explaining the delay in filing this appeal. The 2nd respondent has stated in its statement of objections filed against IA.1/2013 that the application does not show any bona fide reasons for the inordinate delay of 757 days in filing this appeal. It is only to mislead the Court, the appellant has sworn to a false affidavit and narrated false statement about his alleged illness in approaching this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company also submits that, even on merits also, the appeal does not survive for consideration since the first information report/complaint was filed after lapse of 42 days. As such, filing of a belated complaint was purely an after thought and misuse of insurance coverage of alleged insured vehicle. As such, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition as bereft of merits.
6. The claimant has preferred this appeal challenging the dismissal of his claim petition filed in the Court of Addl.District Judge & MACT-II, Hassan, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Tribunal’), under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. Among various reasons, the Tribunal has also observed that there was inordinate delay in filing the first information to the police about the alleged accident in question which has created doubt in the case of the claimant. However, though the merits of the case is not a matter to be considered while deciding the application seeking condonation of delay, but, the reasons given by the appellant explaining the delay is also very vague and unclear. Except stating that he was suffering from severe health problems, the appellant/applicant has not narrated as to what health problem he had and how long he was under medication and in what manner the alleged ill-health has prevented him from preferring the appeal. In addition to that, the appellant has not produced any medical documents to support his contention that he was suffering from fever which prevented him from contacting his advocate appearing in the Tribunal and to prefer the appeal against the impugned order.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme 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 by 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.”
In the light of the above, when the appellant/applicant has not explained the delay convincingly and has very vaguely stated that he was suffering from severe fever, the same does not inspire any confidence in the Court to believe the same.
8. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company has also strongly opposed the application by contending that the appellant has not shown any bona fide reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal and in order to gain mercy of this Court, a false contention of alleged ill-health has been taken by the appellant/claimant. In the said background, I do not find the delay has been convincingly explained and for that reason, the delay does not deserve to be condoned.
Accordingly, IA.1/2013 is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/