Dismissed¶¶76

Shivamma W/O. Ramappa, v. v Shivashankar S/O. v Yella Naganna

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2025MFA/101018/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 2396 days; Section 5 Limitation Act; Section 173(1) Motor Vehicles Act 1988; enhancement of motor accident compensation; MACT Hospet MVC 1322/2008 and 1325/2008; United India Insurance Company; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; Justice B. Muralidhara Pai; 2025; Prakash MFA No.8540/2015; sufficient cause; appeal barred by limitation; fracture right ulna radius; mental shock plea rejected.

What did the court decide?

The injuries said to have been suffered by the appellants in the road traffic accident (fracture of right ulna, fracture of right radius and other simple injuries) have no nexus to the alleged 'mental shock' averred in the affidavits. ¶¶70

Shivamma W/O. Ramappa, Vs v Shivashankar S/O. v… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶76

Issue for consideration

Whether I.A. No. 2/2017 for condonation of delay of 2396 days each in filing the appeals, moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, should be allowed. +1 more

¶¶46

Court's answer

I.A. No. 2/2017 in both the appeals is dismissed.

¶¶75

Ratio / Principle

¶¶70

Key takeaways

The appellants produced no medical record and their affidavits lacked necessary particulars such as period of alleged illness or treatment; accordingly they failed to show a satisfactory explanation or sufficient cause for the inordinate delay, and entertaining condonation without sufficient cause would defeat the object of the law of limitation, particularly for enormous delay supported by vague excuses (as per the decision relied upon).ratio¶¶70
Consequently, both appeals stand dismissed as barred by limitation.ratio¶¶76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appeals under S.173(1) for enhancement of MACT, Hospet awards (Rs.41,280/- in MVC No.1322/2008 and Rs.46,280/- in MVC No.1325/2008, both dated 22.05.2010) - filed on 14.03.2017 with delay of 2396 days each - I.A. No.2/2017 under S.5 of the Limitation Act for condonation - explanations of 'mental shock' from accident injuries, financial hardship and misplacement of certified copies held unsatisfactory - injuries (fracture of right ulna and radius, other simple injuries) found to have no nexus to alleged mental shock; no medical record produced; affidavits lacked particulars of illness/treatment - relying on Prakash v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (Karnataka HC, MFA No.8540/2015, dt. 12.06.2024), condonation without sufficient cause defeats the object of law of limitation - I.A. dismissed - both appeals dismissed as barred by limitation; tribunal awards left untouched.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203 MFA No. 101018 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶6

M.F.A. NO.101018 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W. M.F.A. NO.101019 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

IN MFA NO.101018 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHIVAMMA W/O. RAMAPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. GADIGANUR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DIST.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

V. SHIVASHANKAR S/O. V. YELLA NAGANNA, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REGN. NO.AP-21/X-7668, R/O. HUSSAINPURAM POST, ORVAKAL MANDALAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P STATE.

¶15

PULLA REDDY A. FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGN. NO.AP-21/X-7668, R/O. 5-393, KOTHAPETA, BETAMCHERLA, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A P STATE.

¶16

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203 MFA No. 101018 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

FSKU, H.NO.5-393, KOTHAPETA, BETAMCHERLA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, NEAREST OFFICE, THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., STATION ROAD, HOSPET, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.41,280/- TO RS.3,10,000/- BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HOSPET, DATED 22.05.2010 IN MVC NO.1322/2008, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

IN MFA NO. 101019 OF 2017

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

JADIYAMMA W/O. RUDRAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. GADIGANUR, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DIST.

¶27

…APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

V. SHIVASHANKAR S/O. V. YELLA NAGANNA,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203 MFA No. 101018 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REGN. NO.AP-21/X-7668, R/O. HUSSAINPURAM POST, ORVAKAL MANDALAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P STATE.

¶35

PULLA REDDY A. FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGN. NO.AP-21/X-7668, R/O. 5-393, KOTHAPETA, BETAMCHERLA, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A P STATE.

¶36

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., FSKU, H.NO.5-393, KOTHAPETA, BETAMCHERLA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, NEAREST OFFICE, THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., STATION ROAD, HOSPET, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶39

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.46,280/- TO RS.3,00,000/- BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HOSPET, DATED 22.05.2010 IN MVC NO.1325/2008, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶40

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203 MFA No. 101018 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

¶46

The Appellants, who are the Claimants in M.V.C. Nos. 1322/2008 and 1325/2008 respectively, on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Hospet have preferred these appeals along with the present applications i.e. I.A. No. 2/2017 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay of 2396 days each in filing the appeals.

¶47

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has orally opposed the applications by relying upon the decision in Prakash s/o Byroji Rao (dead) by his L.Rs. V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another in MFA.No.8540/2015 , dated 12.06.2024 .

¶48

During the course of argument on these applications, learned Counsel for Appellants submitted that due to ill-health and financial problems, appellants could not prefer the appeals within the prescribed period and that the delay in filing the appeals is bonafide.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203 MFA No. 101018 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

4. In Prakash ’s case referred (supra), the Hon’ble High

¶53

Court of Karnataka has held (paragraph 15) as follows:

¶54

15. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra, we are of the considered view that the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the enormous delay of 2537 days. The averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay are extremely vague and do not provide a satisfactory explanation to condone such an enormous delay. Merely, a higher compensation is awarded to the lands situated in the same village subsequently, cannot be the ground to condone the enormous delay. The condoning of enormous delay as sought by the appellants is nothing but a revival of the dead right of the appellants. If such an application for condonation of delay is entertained, without any sufficient cause, it would confer a right in favour of the litigant who is a fence sitter, lacks bonafides and is not diligent about his rights. That would defeat the object of law of limitation. In other words, the appellants and similarly placed persons cannot be allowed to reopen or revive their right to prefer the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of parity after a period of nearly 7 years. Allowing the application would run contrary to the public policy and cause great injustice to the respondents and it also creates an avenue for similarly placed persons to approach the Court as per their whims and fancies. The Court is also

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203 MFA No. 101018 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

required to keep in mind the finality of the lis between the parties while condoning the delay. If Courts start interpreting the word 'sufficient cause' in an unduly liberal way even without there being any acceptable explanation for condoning enormous delay, it would lead to unsettling the rights of the parties which were settled by the reference Court long ago. This Court would have definitely sympathized with the appellants - land losers in considering their appeal on merits, if they had filed the appeal within the period of limitation or sufficient cause was shown for the delay. In the instant case, the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay.”

¶59

Coming to the present case, appellants have preferred these appeals on 14.03.2017, praying for enhancement of compensation awarded on 22.05.2010 in M.V.C. Nos. 1322/2008 and 1325/2008. Admittedly, there is a delay of 2396

¶60

days each in preferring these appeals. The appellants have filed affidavits in support of the present applications. The relevant portions of the said affidavits read as under:

¶61

“3. That after the Judgment my counsel told me about the Judgment I was intending to prefer an appeal hence I requested to obtain certified copy. That due to the mental shock suffered due to the injuries sustained by me in RTA on 01-04-2008 and hence due to the maintenance of the family affairs become critical due to the severe financial difficulties, as I was unable to

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203 MFA No. 101018 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

discharge my duties as earlier and was under deep pressure and was in search of the livelihood to lead my day to day life and was unable to file an appeal in time due to critical financial problems as I could not work as earlier and earn the livelihood as earlier due to the injuries sustained by me in RTA. As I am a Illiterate person and also I am not aware of the legal proceedings. Due to poverty and financial difficulties could not file the appeal in time. Hence the delay.

¶66

4. The handling advocate before the tribunal had instructed me that I have a good case in appeal and there are chances of succeeding in the appeal. I also advised my advocate to apply for the certified copies of the judgment and award to file an appeal. The advocate had obtained the certified copies of the judgment and award and handed over to me, but while cleaning the house the said certified copy of the judgment and award were misplaced and after some time the said documents were found after search in the house. Hence the delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, there is a delay of 2396 days in filing the present appeal. That due to mental shock and due to critical financial conditions. I was unable to file appeal in time. That the delay in filing present appeal is not intentional one and the same is due to unavoidable circumstances.”

¶67

It is the case of the appellants that due to mental shock suffered on account of the road traffic accident and due to financial difficulties, they could not prefer the appeals in time. In addition, they have stated that they had misplaced the certified copies of the impugned judgment and award, which were handed over to them, which caused delay in filing the appeals.

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14203 MFA No. 101018 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101019 of 2017

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

The perusal of the record reveals that the Appellants herein had sustained injuries such as fracture of right ulna and fracture of right radius and other simple injuries. Thereby it becomes prima facie clear that the injuries said to have been suffered by the Appellants in the road traffic accident have no nexus to their alleged “mental shock” as averred in the affidavits. Further, the Appellants have not produced any medical record in support of their above contention. It is also relevant to note that the contents of the affidavits lack necessary particulars such as period of alleged illness, period of treatment if any, etc. Thereby the Appellants have failed to come up with a satisfactory explanation or sufficient cause for inordinate delay in preferring these appeals. As held in the decision referred supra, if an application for condonation of delay is entertained without sufficient cause, it would defeat the object of law of limitation particularly when the delay is enormous and when the applicant comes up with extremely vague and lame excuse.

¶71

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶72