Kesireddy Santoshi v. Mr. Jawahar Lal
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
[ 32531
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEN'BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI IA NO: 2 OF 2OZ4 IN/AND MACMA NO: 5760F 2024 Appeal filed under section '173 of M.v. Act against the order and decree, dated 1510212016 in o P No.623 of 2012 on the fite of Xt Additionat chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad.
t Between:
Kesireddy Santoshi, D/o. Kista Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ _ Nill, R/o. Peerlapally Village, Jagadevpur Mand-al. Medak District.- !
..,CLAIMANT/APPELLANT AND !
1. Mr. Jawahar Lal, Sio Not known, Age-major, occ- Business, R/o.106, Jibli Ganj, Rajban Bazar, lr/leerut
2. The New lndia Assurancg Co L-td Rep. by its Branch Manager, .101, 1st Floor, Thirumala Towers, Judges Colony; tvlahkpet, HyOeraUiA. "- Rl Remained ex parly in Lower Court ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass orders by condone the deray of 2794 days, in filing the above appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T. Viswarupa Chary Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri p. Bhanu prakash The Court made the following: ORDER
/ ,l HONOTIRABLE SMT.JUSTIC EM.G.PRTYADARSINI I.A.No.2 of 2o.24 In And M.A.C.M.A. No.576 OF 2o24 ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order d,ated. 75 02 2O16 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the lezLrned XI Additional Ctrief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (he reinafter will be referred as Tribunal') in M V'O'P No '623 of 2()l)' the claimant/appellant has preferred the present Appeal to ('nhance the quantum of comPensation.
2.
For th,: sake of convenience, the parties irereinafter are referred as ttrey were arrayed before the Tribunal3. The tlrief facts of the case as can be secn l-rom Lh': record are that th,e petitioner hled claim petition undc r Scr:ti-rn 163-A of the l[otor Vehicle Act claiming compcnsrltion of Rs.5,00,O00,/- for the injuries sustained by him in :r rr':rcl t raffic accident thzrt occurred on 11.1120I1 at Rarnpur Thanda against the respondent Nos.l and 2, who are o\\'llcr antl insurer of the crimr: vehicle i.e., I-orry bearing No UP 15 Y q588 4.
Before the learned Tribunal, the rt:sJrondr:nt No' 1 remained e):parle and whereas respondcnt No 2 fllrlrj counter
denying t1.e petition averments including the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, medical expenditure, negligence of driver of crime vehicle and finally prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5.
The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, partly alloted the claim petition awarding Rs.83,OOO/- as compensation in favour of the petitioner/appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is preferred by the petitioner to enhance the quantum of compensation.
6.
Before going into the merits o[ the case, it is pertinent to note that the present Appeal is filed along w,ith an interlocutory .
l application i.e., I.A.No.2 of 2024 to conclone the delay of 2794 days in frling the present Appeal. Thus, it is to be ascertained i t as to whether the petitioner/ appella nt has established just and suflicient cause to condone the delay of 2794 days. 7.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant submitted that due to ill health and coror-ra lockdown, she could not prefer the Appeal within the stipulated penod and that the i ii lrling of the appeal with a de lav ot 2794 days is neither willful nor negligence.
II
8.
On the other hand, the learned counsel lbr the respondents;T respondents submitted that the p€rt itioner/ appellant h,as not hled any medical certificate and that no valid reasons were explained for the day to day delall except contending that on account of her ill health and corona lock down she could not file the appeal in time' In this connection' the learnecl counsel for the respondents/ responderrts relied upon a dec:.sion of the Honourable Apex Court in Estdte OfJicer Haryona U'rban Deuelopment Aut'toritg u' Gopi Chand Atrejar .
g.
Hear,l both sides and perused the record'
10. On c,cnsidering the rival contentions, it is amply clear that except contending that the petitioner/ appeltant u'as sulfcring from ill health, no other reason was assigned for the delaf in {iling the /.ppeal. Apart from that the petitione r/ ap pt: ll:rn t has not placed any documentary evidence to establish th:rl she was sulfering lrc,m il1 health for all these 2794 days t c, for more than seven and half years. The petitioner/ appellant has not cven speci1-rc:ally stated as to what is the health issuc v'ith tt hich she had bcen suffering during the above said period r\s rightly contendcd try the learned counsel for the respondent'; therc is .- A{R 219 S(i I-.2 }
no corona (covid- 19 paldemic) in the year 2016 and, even if the petitioner/appellant is suffering from ill health for more than three years, she ought to have hled the medical certiircate. The reason assigned by the petitioner/appellant is appearing to be vague and general. In fact, the above reason assigned by the petitioner/appellant for the delay in filing the Appeal is appearing to be a concocted one. When a party is found to be negligent or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. In order to advance substantial justice, liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind, however, the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act.
1 1 . It is to be seen that no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner /appellant if the delay is not condoned, more particularly, when the respondents/ respondcnts have already Iiled an Appeal vide M.A.C.M.A.No.255O ot 2016 challenging the order passed in MVOP No.623 l2Ol2 and the petitioner/appellant can put forth her contentions in the said Appeal.
12. In vieu' of the above facts and circumstances and since the petitioner/ appellant failed to show just and sufficient cause for the delay of 2794 days in hling the Appeal, this Cour:t is not inclined to condone huge inordinate delay of 2794 days in hling the Appeal. Hence, this interlocutory application is liable to be !
dismissed.
asa
13. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2024 is dismissed and consequenoe, the M.A.C.M.A.No.576 of 2024 is rejected' i Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI GISTRAR //TRUE COPY/'
ASSISTANT RE 0));;" OFFICER To, The Xl Additir:rral Chief Judge, City Civil Courts' at Hyderabad O""'CC l" Sri I Viswarupa-Chary, Advocate-[QPlc] il; 66 iI 5ii p ehrnu Prakash,-Advocate [oPUC] Two CD CoPies Iigw
HIGH COURT DATED: 12111112024 ,g 1r - -:".::= ?..-- I, j ;-21 ; (.
( ,\ 1f i)c (_) (, Cl,,:i _t t 9e Srr^.' r'1r'
:-,-a:.. -;-
ORDER
lA No: 2 of 2024 in/and MACMA.No.576 of 2024 D!SMISSING THE lA No: 2 ot 2024 and REJECTING'THE MACMA.No.576 of 2024 tt \ e\ Lb