Disposed¶63

Smt. Shivalingamma v. Smt. Chennamma

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2025MFA/5900/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay refused; belated claimants' appeal under S.173(1) MV Act disposed of. Keywords: condonation of delay; bona fide explanation; belated appeal; Section 173(1) Motor Vehicles Act; MACT Mandya; MVC No.715/2008; award dated 01.07.2016; enhancement of compensation; New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; Insurer absolved; owner liable; accident 13.10.2008; death of P. Shivaswamy; connected owner's appeal M.F.A.No.8191/2016; I.A.No.1/2023; High Court of Karnataka; D K Singh; B M Shyam Prasad.

What did the court decide?

None — condonation of delay (I.A. No.1/2023) was refused and the appeal stands disposed of without adjudication; no enhancement awarded by this Court. ¶63

Smt. Shivalingamma Vs Smt. Chennamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — condonation of delay (I.A. No.1/2023) was refused and the appeal stands disposed of without adjudication; no enhancement awarded by this Court.

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of about six years in filing the claimants' appeal (M.F.A. No.5900/2023) must be condoned, paving the way for the appellants to seek enhancement of compensation. +2 more

¶58

Court's answer

An applicant seeking condonation of delay must be bona fide in offering reasons to show cause against the delay; unless such bona fides are seen, the delay cannot be condoned.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

The claimants took no action for over a period of five to six years after the Tribunal's judgment, and the excuse offered in the first appellant's affidavit does not show bona fides; therefore this is not a case for condonation of delay.

¶58

Key takeaways

Since the delay is not condoned, the application I.A. No.1/2023 and the appeal stand disposed of — i.e., the belated appeal is not entertained for adjudication of enhancement.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (DB), decided 22.07.2025 — MFA No. 5900 of 2023 (MV-D), filed under S.173(1) MV Act by the widow and other dependents of late P. Shivaswamy (who died of injuries suffered in the accident of 13.10.2008) against the judgment and award dated 01.07.2016 of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mandya in MVC No.715/2008, seeking enhancement of compensation and aggrieved by the Tribunal absolving the Insurer (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) and making the owner liable. The appeal was filed about six years after the award. The Court (judgment per B M Shyam Prasad, bench D K Singh and B M Shyam Prasad) held that an applicant must be bona fide in offering reasons against delay and that unless such bona fides are seen the delay cannot be condoned; although the claimants were duly represented in the connected owner's appeal M.F.A.No.8191/2016 much before they appealed, they took no steps for five to six years and the affidavit explanation (financial constraints, waiting on the owner's appeal) did not show bona fides. Accordingly, application I.A.No.1/2023 and the appeal stand disposed of. The questions whether the Tribunal justifiably absolved the Insurer and the adequacy of the quantum are left to be considered in M.F.A.No.8191/2016, in which the claimants would also be heard.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27560-DB MFA No. 5900 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5900 OF 2023 (MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. SHIVALINGAMMA W/O LATE P. SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶12

MISS. S. SHILPA, D/O LATE P. SHIVASWAMY, AGED 32 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

MISS. S. KALPANA, S/O LATE P. SHIVASWAMY, AGED 30 YEARS

¶16

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, W/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶17

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SOUDHENAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27560-DB MFA No. 5900 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MANDYA DIST - 471401.

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD., ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED 59 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. NAGENDRA, S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY, MAJOR,

¶26

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY, MAJOR,

¶27

TEACHER,

¶28

ALL ARE R/O CHINYA VILLAGE, HONANKERE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DIST - 571 401.

¶29

SMT. JAYANTHI, W/O LATE B.T. MANJU, AGED 50 YEARS,

¶30

MISS. ESHAWINI, D/O LATE B.T. MANJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶31

MISS. ROSHNI, D/O LATE B.T. MANJU, AGED 28 YEARS,

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27560-DB MFA No. 5900 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

MISS. PRIYADARSHINI D/O LATE B.T. MANJU, AGED 19 YEARS,

¶35

NOS. 4 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF BEVAKALLU VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DIST - 571405

¶36

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.1200, 2ND CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR, MANDYA - 571401 BY ITS MANAGER

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. PREMKUMAR C S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. C. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.01.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.715/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶40

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27560-DB MFA No. 5900 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶46

The appeal by the owner of the vehicle involved

¶47

in an accident on 13.10.2008 is in M.F.A.No.8191/2016 and to dispose of this appeal, this Court must examine whether the Tribunal has justifiably absolved the Insurer of the obligation to indemnify the owner. However, the widow and other dependents of the deceased Mr. P. Shivaswamy, who had died because of the injuries suffered in the accident, have filed their appeal in M.F.A. No.5900/2023, but six years after the Tribunal's award. The appellants have filed an application [I.A.No.1/2023] for condonation of delay.

¶48

The claimants were duly represented in the owner's appeal much prior to the date of their appeal, nevertheless the appeal is belated. The

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:27560-DB MFA No. 5900 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

appellants' explanation for delay as stated in the affidavit by the first appellant is as under:

¶53

"4. I am uneducated lady and appellants No. 2,3 are my children and appellant NO. 4 is also old lady who is also uneducated. Myself and other appellants were all entirely dependant on the earnings of late P. Shivaswamy only. I am only managing the affairs of my house and others do not have any wordly knowledge and also not conversant with the court proceedings. After the judgement and award was passed, the counsel applied for certified copy of judgement and award, and after receipt of the same, my counsel had intimated me to contact him to discuss regarding the future action to be taken in the case. Due to financial constrains I could not contact advocate immediately and then after sometime, notice/summons was received in MFA No. 8191/2016 said to be filed by the owner of tractor. Then again I contacted the counsel and he asked me to sign the vakalath and also signatures of other appellants/claimants were obtained and the same was filed. There after my counsel did not say anything, and Myself and other appellants who were not aware of procedures of legal proceedings, were under the impression that the appeal has to be decided by the hon'ble high court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, in order to get our compensation amount. We were waiting in the fond hope that the appeal filed by the tractor owner will be decided and we would receive compensation amount."

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27560-DB MFA No. 5900 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The claimants are also aggrieved by the Insurer being absolved and the owner of the vehicle being made liable and the quantum of compensation awarded. The merits of the Tribunal's decision to absolve the Insurer is an aspect that would be considered in the owner's appeal

¶57

[ M.F.A.No.8191/2016 ] and the claimants would also definitely be heard on this question.

¶58

The question is whether the delay in filing the appeal must be condoned paving the way for appellants to seek enhancement in compensation. The appellants must be bonafide in offering reasons to show cause against delay, and unless such bonafides are seen, the delay cannot be condoned. The claimants have not taken any action for over a period of five to six years after the Tribunal's judgment and have come up with an excuse as seen in the paragraph extracted above, This is not a case for condonation of delay.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:27560-DB MFA No. 5900 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Hence, the application [I.A. No.1/2023] and the

¶63

appeal stand disposed of.

¶64

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶65