Appellant, now adult, filed appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation against the limitation period. Court rejected the claim for condoning excessive delay due to lack of material regarding deserted mother and upheld the original award.
Appeal dismissed. No grounds to condone the delay of over 14 years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4058/2021(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
KUM KEERTHANA R D/O LATE SRI H R RAVI AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.1453 2ND CROSS, 3RD STAGE BHUVANESHWARINAGAR KAMALANAGAR BANGALORE NORTH BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 079
FORMERLY RESIDED AT NO.12/6 1ST MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS POORNAPRAJNA LAYOUT BSK 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 085 …APPELLANT
Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI.KIRAN N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
(BY SRI. S NIRMALA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 & R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DTD:16.12.2022; R4 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO.5149/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU (CCH14) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER ON I.A.NOS.1/2020, 1/2022 AND 2/2022
Heard both side.
Rs.3,86,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. The award was
apportioned between the appellant and her mother in ratio of 40% and 60%.
was aged two years. After 15 years, the appellant has filed this appeal claiming that her mother/guardian did not prosecute the matter diligently and her interest was not protected. There is delay of 5227 days in filing the appeal.
the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month as a conductor and the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.3,000/- per month. There is nothing to show that the income of the deceased during the year 2003 was more than Rs.3,000/-. It is not the
case of the appellant that respondent No.4 withdrew the
amount awarded to her.
ORDER
I.A.No.1/2020 and consequently the appeal are
dismissed.
Appellant can furnish the proof of she attaining majority before the Tribunal and seek withdrawal of the amount. If such application is filed, the Tribunal shall pass the necessary order in accordance with law.
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
PKN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 5227 days in filing the miscellaneous first appeal should be condoned.
Whether the compensation awarded in the lower court to the minor appellant was grossly inadequate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kum Keerthana R D/o Late Sri H.R. Ravi
Ms National Insurance Co. Ltd
Mr C.D. Gowda
Mr Devaraju S/o Kadaiah
Ms K.S. Poornima
K.S. Mudagal
K.V. Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
