Dismissed

Kotha Venkatappa v. Vijayalakshmi Getmenon

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2015MFA/922/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an application condoning an 8-year delay in filing a miscellaneous first appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court held that financial hardship and lack of legal representation were not sufficient grounds under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, rejecting the appeal as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal rejected as not maintainable.

Kotha Venkatappa Vs Vijayalakshmi Getmenon — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

�� MFA No��

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.922 OF 2014

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI KOTHA VENKATAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶7

SMT AREMMA W/O KOTHA VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MESAGANAHALLI VILLAGE SRINIVASAPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶8

... APPELLANTS

¶9

(BY SRI: SANGAMESH R B, ADV)

¶10

AND:

¶11

VIJAYALAKSHMI GETMENON W/O UMA MAHESHWAWRA RAO MAJOR, NO.5/9 (A) KALAVAPUDI AGRAHARA GUDIVADA MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH.

¶12

MFA No��

¶13

��

¶14

UNITED INSURANCE CO.LTD SHANKARNARAYAN BUILDING M G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001. 3. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE SRINIVAS @ SEENAPPA MAJOR 4. MASTER VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE SRINIVAS @ SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS 5. KUM PRIYANKA D/O LATE SRINIVAS @ SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS 6. KUM GAYATHRI D/O LATE SRINIVAS @ SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MESAGANAHALLI VILLAGE SRINIVASPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2007 PASSED IN MVC NO.8472/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE 7^TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

MFA No��

¶17

��

¶18

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Heard on IA.I/2014.

¶20

The appeal is against the judgment

¶21

and award dated 22.09.2007. The appellant has

¶22

filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, requesting to condone the delay

¶23

of 2353 days in filing the appeal. In support of the said application, an affidavit has been filed by the first appellant stating that he

¶24

after the dismissal of matter before the Tribunal could not approach the advocate at Bengaluru as he was suffering from financial problem. It is also his grievance that his advocate cheated him and a complaint is lodged in respect of the said act of cheating. It is also his grievance that the third respondent did not support him and in the circumstances, sought for condoning the delay, aforesaid.

¶25

MFA No��

¶26

��

¶27

There is a delay of about 8 years in

¶28

filing the appeal. If there was any financial problem, there was no difficulty for the appellant to approach the legal service authority and in respect of the complaint filed against the advocate, nothing has been produced before the Court except the statement and also does not produce the copy of complaint that was filed as regards the act of cheating by the counsel.

¶29

Taking into consideration the

¶30

aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the grounds put forth is not sufficient cause as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Though the Court has to be liberal in condoning the delay, even taking the liberal view, I do not find any grounds to condone the same.

¶31

Hence, IA.I/2014 is dismissed.

¶32

MFA No��

¶33

��

¶34

Consequently, the appeal is not

¶35

maintainable and hence, it is rejected.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

*bgn/-

Kotha Venkatappa v. Vijayalakshmi Getmenon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotha Venkatappa v. Vijayalakshmi Getmenon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Razak @ Razak Vs Velerian Lewis

Balachandra G Vs the Managing Director

M Lathamma Vs M/S Tata Aig General Ins Co. Ltd.

Shivalingegowda Vs Smt. Sunitha G K

Smt. Varalakshmi Vs Krishnappa M

M.L. Shashi @ M.L. Shashikala Vs Divisional Manager