Dismissed

Shivakka W/O. Hanumanthappa Gonimath v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC26 Feb 2019MFA/100176/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order rejected an interlocutory application to condone a 778-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Reason given for rejection was that the stated grounds (poverty, ill health) were bald and vague.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory Application No.1/2018 rejected; Appeal dismissed.

Shivakka W/O. Hanumanthappa Gonimath Vs the… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI

¶6

MFA NO.100176/2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHIVAKKA W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA GONIMATH, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KOD VILLAGE IN HIREKERUR TALUK, NOW AT HALAGERI VILLAGE IN RANEBENNUR, TALUK DIST. HAVERI.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. G.N.NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, NORTH WEST DIVISION, GOKULROAD, HOUSER HUBBALLI, (OWNER AND SELF INSURER OF THE KSRTC BUS NO.KA-25/F-2384)

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(SRI. S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

AND AWARD DATED 19.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.689/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGEMENT

¶20

Heard on I.A.No.1/2018 for condonation of delay of 778 days in filing the appeal.

¶21

The reasons stated at paragraph 3 of the affidavit reads as under:

¶22

“After the accident to my financial condition is week. I am not aware about the limitation period. Due to poverty and ill health and non awareness of law the delay of 778 is caused in filing this appeal. I submit that the delay is bonafide one, the delay is not intentional. If the delay is condoned no harm or loss will be caused to other side. On the contrary if the delay is not condoned, I will be put to great loss and hardship. I have got good case on merits.”

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

The reasons are very bald and very vague

¶25

stating that, poverty, ill-health and non awareness of law and delay is not intentional. For these reasons the delay of 778 days cannot be condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2018 is rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

*Svh/-

Shivakka W/O. Hanumanthappa Gonimath v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivakka W/O. Hanumanthappa Gonimath v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Shashidhar Vs Karnataka Housing Board

Shekanna S/O Harijan Eranna Vs P. Madhusudhan S/O Radhakrishna

Bheemangouda S/O Basappa Vs the Secretary

Renavva @ Renuka W/O Ramappa Bhavani, Vs Kumuda Venkayya Naik

Smt.Anusuya W/O. Ningappa Olekar Vs Basappa S/O. Peerappa Chawan

Gadigevva W/O. Channabasappa Gonimath Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc