Dismissed

Maruti S/O Ramachandra Pujari v. Smt. N. Rajati W/O Omadhu

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2019MFA/100664/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant sought enhancement of accident compensation. The High Court rejected the accompanying application to condone the 1318-day filing delay as the reasons provided (ill-health, ignorance) were vague and insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay rejected; Miscellaneous First Appeal rejected with no enhancement of compensation.

Maruti S/O Ramachandra Pujari Vs Smt. N. Rajati W/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI

¶5

M.F.A. NO. 100664/2018 (MV) A/W I.A. NO. 2/2018

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

MARUTI S/O RAMACHANDRA PUJARI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & COOLIE, NOW NIL, R/O: ARABHAVI, PIN:591 307, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶8

APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. H.R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

SMT. N. RAJATI W/O MADHU, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 13C SALEM MAIN ROAD, SANKRI, SALEM, PIN 636 001, TQ & DIST: SALEM (TAMILNADU).

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, PIN:590 001, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO. 58/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT AND AMACT, GOKAK & ETC.

¶16

¶17

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed by the claimant-injured in M.V.C. No. 58/2010 challenging the judgment and award dated 02.04.2014 and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶20

This appeal is preferred with the delay of 1318 days.

¶21

To condone the same, I.A. No. 2/2018 is filed along with the affidavit of the claimant stating the reasons for delay caused in filing the appeal. In paragraph no. 3 of the affidavit it is stated as under:

¶22

“3. That the respondent no-2 has deposited the compensation recently and I withdrawn the same recently. In the mean time I was not keeping well. Due to my ill-health, financial difficulties and ignorance of limitation I have not filed the appeal for enhancement and after arranging the amount for expenses of appeal I

¶23

visited to an Advocate and requested to file this appeal.”

¶24

¶25

¶26

The above statement is very vague and bald which do not reveal dates and events in respect of his ill health, etc. In the absence of valid reasons, question of condoning the inordinate delay of 1318 days in filing the appeal do not arise. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2018 filed for condonation of inordinate delay of 1318 days in filing the appeal stands rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected.

¶27

SD JUDGE

¶28

bvv

Maruti S/O Ramachandra Pujari v. Smt. N. Rajati W/O Omadhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti S/O Ramachandra Pujari v. Smt. N. Rajati W/O Omadhu

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

Dundawwa W/O. Shivappa Mantoor Vs Sangappa Shanabasappa Andani @ Ullagaddi

Rahul Durgappa Patil Occ Student R/O.Chandur Post Vs Maruti S/O.Gangappa Kedari Major Occ Business

Sanjeev S/O.Parashram Bhajantri Occ Student Vs Maruti S/O.Gangappa Kedari Major Occ Business

Branch Manager Vs Rasheed

Branch Manager Vs Mahesh

Shri. Rudrappa S/O Veerappa Jakkappanavar Vs Shri. Nagappa S/O Yallappa Hanchinal