Dismissed¶51

Sangam Maraiah, Nizamabad v. Sri Anjayya Hanumayya Koyadwar and Another

Telangana HC3 Jul 2025MACMA/3460/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 2361 days; abatement of appeal on death of sole claimant-appellant; legal representatives impleadment; I.A. Nos. 1-3 of 2024 under Section 151 CPC; Section 5 Limitation Act explanation; Section 173 M.V. Act appeal; MACMA No. 3460 of 2008; MACT (District Judge) Nizamabad, O.P. No. 742 of 2004, Rs. 4,55,143/- with 7.5% interest; Estate Officer HUDA v. Gopi Chand Atreja AIR 2019 SC 1421; appeal dismissed as abated; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None. Delay condonation refused; abatement not set aside; legal representatives not brought on record; appeal dismissed as abated, with no costs. ¶51

Sangam Maraiah, Nizamabad Vs Sri Anjayya Hanumayya… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. Delay condonation refused; abatement not set aside; legal representatives not brought on record; appeal dismissed as abated, with no costs.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 2361 days in filing the applications (I.A. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2024) for condonation of delay, setting aside of abatement, and bringing the legal representatives of the deceased claimant/appellant on record in MACMA No. 3460 of 2008 should be condoned.

¶40

Court's answer

An appeal automatically abates upon the death of the appellant unless the legal representatives come on record within permissible time with a proper explanation for any delay in filing the legal representative petition.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The reasons put forth by the proposed petitioners - that they were not aware of the legal consequences of the delay and approached their counsel on 23.07.2024, i.e. after about seven years of the death of the claimant - are not sufficient to condone the delay of eight years (2361 days) for setting aside the abatement of the appeal caused on account of the death of the claimant.

¶50

Key takeaways

The appeal stands dismissed as abated; the condone-delay petition (I.A. No. 1 of 2024) is dismissed, and consequently I.A. No. 2 of 2024 (set aside of abatement) and I.A. No. 3 of 2024 (legal representative petition) are also dismissed; no costs.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.), 03.07.2025 - I.A. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2024 in MACMA No. 3460 of 2008 (against award dated 31-1-2008 of MACT (District Judge), Nizamabad in O.P. No. 742 of 2004, granting Rs. 4,55,143/- with 7.5% interest): the sole claimant-appellant died on 03.09.2017 during pendency of the appeal. His proposed legal representatives sought condonation of a 2361-day delay, setting aside of abatement, and impleadment, pleading ignorance of legal consequences and that they approached counsel only on 23.07.2024. Held: an appeal automatically abates on the death of the appellant unless the legal representatives come on record within permissible time with proper explanation for any delay; ignorance of legal consequences and approaching counsel about seven years after the claimant's death are not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of eight years. Condonation refused; I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2024 dismissed; appeal dismissed as abated, no costs. The insurer's standing counsel relied on Estate Officer, HUDA v. Gopi Chand Atreja (AIR 2019 SC 1421) regarding counsel's duty to pursue proceedings and the parties' duty of diligence; the Court referred to the submission and decided on its own assessment of the explanation offered.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT}

¶2

HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF^JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

l.A. No. I OF 2004

¶7

¶8

M.A.C M.A. No: 3460 OF 2008

¶9

Appeal filed under Section^{173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the Orderand} Decree made in OP No. 742^{of 2OO4,dated 31-1-2008, on the file of the Court of} the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal^{(DistrictJudge)'Nizamabad-}

¶10

M.A.C.M.A. No: 3460 OF 2008

¶11

Between:

¶12

Sangam Maraiah,

¶13

S/o. Veeraiah Carpenter,

¶14

FUo. Poosalgally, Nizamabad

¶15

...Appellant

¶16

AND

¶17

Sri Anjayya Hanumayya Koyadwar,^{S/o. Hanumayya Koyadwar,} Ownei 6f Jeep bearing No. MH-31/AH-9354, Plot No.14, Teka Naka, KamPtee^Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra.

¶18

National lnsurance Company^Ltd.,

¶19

through it's Branch, Manager, Jatpura Gate, Chandrapur, rep. by its Branch Manager, B.' Laimiraj Complex, Jawahar^Road, Nizamabad. ..ResPondents

¶20

lA NO:^'1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 2361 days in filing the LR Petition to bring the Petitioners 2 & 3 on record in the above MACMA No. 3460 of 2008.

¶22

Between:

¶23

'	8:iflil4li,?.,xl,.:,iJ8*"iah (Died)
'	ilifi'$iidtiffir"",?,:11:il:;:il::::'
AND '	8i:q'F:#?Tiib:f.l-f,lHf"sikar Hanumanthu, f,i;##r,;t"l#ilypaily^{viliase,KorasiriMandat,} ...AppellanUpetitioners

¶24

'ixffl"fliis-:"fi :ril[#t:H:r.:]f!1""vv'Kovadwar,
2ll:lig!S,.J,"._rranceCompanyLtd., mroughitsBranch,Man,ager, j^a]pyra..Ggle,Cha ndrapu r, LqIylt"^{BranchManiser,} ::LaxTira.l^{Complex,Jaiva'har}Road, Nrzamabad ...Respondents/Respondents

¶25

IAN :2O F2 024

¶26

Petition under Section .151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to set aside the abatement in the above MACMA No. 3460 of 2008.

¶27

N 3 F 2024

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased lo permit the petitioners 2 & 3 on record as LR,s of petitioner No. 1 in the above MACMA No. 3460 of 2008.

¶29

For the Appellant : Sri. S.Surender Reddy, Advocate

¶30

For the Respondent No.2: Sri p. Bhanu prakash, Advocate

¶31

The Court made the foltowing: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶32

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶33

I.A.No.1^of2O24 IN AND MACMA No.^{3460of 2OO8}

¶34

coMM^ONJUDGMENT:

¶35

The^{Appeal, MACMA No'346Oof 2OO8 has beenf-rled bv} Maraiah/claimant^{challengingtheJudgmentand} Sangam Decree^{dated31'O12OO8passed by the Motor AccidentClaims} Tribunal^{(DistrictJudge), Nizamabad'in O.P'No'742 of 2OO4 '}

¶36

By the^{impugnedJudgmentand Decreethe Tribunal} partly-allowed^{the petition by awarding acompe nsationof} Rs.4,55,143/-^{,witk-7 '5o/o interestper annum'holdingthe} owner^{ofoffending Jeep(MH-3 1/AH-9354) as well as the} Insurance^{Company jointly and severally liable to paythe} compensation^{Dissatished with the quantum of compensa[ion'} the^{claimant filed this APPeal'}

¶37

This^{Appealis of the year 2OO8'We are in )'O25 ' Norv' a[} this^{juncture,an 'Application I A'No'3 of 2024 is hled bv the} proposed^{petitioners No'2and 3' seekingto come on recordas} legal^{representatives of the claimant/appellant'It is statcdby} 1n the APPlication^thatthe the ProPosed^Petitioners claimant/appellant^{expired on O3'09'2017 and they were not}

¶38

t.:'E

¶39

¶40

aware of the pending Appeal before this Court and therelore could not file LR petition within time. Further I.A.No.2 of 2024 is filed to set aside the abatement of Appeal caused on account of the dea[h of claimant/appellant. Further as there is a delay of 2361 days in filing the Applications i.e., I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024, the petitioners hled I.A.No .l of 2024 seeking to condone the delay.

¶41

Heard Sri Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the proposed petitioners/applicants; and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-lnsurance company. perused the record.

¶42

Learned Standing Counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Estate Officer, Haryana llrban Deaelopment Authoritg a. Gopi Chand. Atrejat, and contends that the counsel responsible for pursuing the proceedings before the court is cxpected to represent and assist the court. It is further submitted that the parties are also expected to diligently follow up with their counsel regarding the progress of their case. However, in the instant case, the proposed petitioners/appellants as well as their counsel have not at all brought it to the notice of this Court about the expiry of Mr Sangam Maraiah (claimant/appellant) way back in the vear ' AIR 20 t9 sc l42l

qr.Nc n" H&d')oo3

{ I

2Ol7^{i.e., almost 8 Years agoIt is also contendedthat under} each^{day delaY has tobe} Section^{5 of Limitation Act'} satisfactorily^{explained'but in the instant case' there is a huge} and^{inordinatedelay of 8 years from the date of expiry of the} claimant^{(Mr' SangamMaraiah)' and the petilionersherein} except stating^{that [heyare unaware of the legalconsequences} and that^{they approached their counsel and furnishedthe} Death^{Certilrcate of [he claimant ot23 'O7 2024 'there ts no} satisfactory^{explanation for the causeof delay'Moreover'the} counsel^{too has apparentlynot tried to contact his client(Mr'} Sangam^{Maraiah) or his familymernbers'during all thcse years'} as if^{any such communicationhad happened' itcould have} revealed^{whether the claimant was alive or not'Learned} Standing^{Counsel thereforecontends that in view o[ there being} no^{sufficient grounds to condone the inordinatedelay of 2361} days,^{the condone delay applicationis liableto be dismissed'}

¶47

Considering^{the respectivesubmissions' it may be noted} that^{the appeal automatically abates upon the death of the} legal^{representatives come on record} appellant,^{unless the} of deray,^{if any,} within^{permissible time' with proper explanatron} in frling^{the legal representativepetition'Whereas in the instant} case,^{the claimant/ apperlant (Mr.SangamMaraiah) expired way}

¶48

¶49

tA No I of202r u

¶50

back in the year 2017 (i.e., O3.OT.2O1Z), and the reasons pur forth by the proposed petitioners in I.A.No. I of 2024 that they were not aware of the legal consequences of the delay and that they approached their counsel on 23.07.2024 (i.e., after 7 years of the death of the claimant) are not sufficient to condone the delay of 8 years for setting aside the abatement of appeal caused on account of the death of the claimant.

¶51

Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed as abated. The condone delay petition i.e., I.A.No. I of 2024 rs dismissed. Consequently, the I.A.No.2 of 2024 (set aside of abatement), and I'A'No.3 of 2024 (Legal Representative petition) also stanrJ dismissed. No costs.

¶52

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶53

closed

¶54

SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD OEPUTY REGI?TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

secrr{M*rrcen

To,

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad ?. 9n"^{CC to Sri S. Surender} Reddy, AdVocate fOpUti' 3. Qne CC to Sri P. Bhanu prakash,'Advocate lCiFUCl ' 4. Two CD Copies

KNK/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/07t2025

COMMON JUDGMENT

I
11 SEP 206
,r
otsp,r, rc'<br>

¶64

l.A. No. 1 of 2024 tn MACMA.No.3460 of 2008