//• APHC010160982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 427 OF 2025 Between: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Manager, Anjaneya Towers, D.No.39-1-82/A, Venkateswarapuram, Labbipet, Vijayawada-520010 4th Floor, M.G.Road, ...Appellant AND 1. Kondareddy Anasuya Prabhavathi, W/o.late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Female 47 years. Housewife, Flat No.208 Harischandra Towers Sajjapuram, Tanuku, W.G.Dt., Tanuku JCJC. 2. Kondareddy Bharath Kumar, S/o.late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, male, 27 years. Software Engineer, Flat No.208 Sajjapuram, Tanuku, W.G.Dt., Tanuku JCJC. 3. Kondareddy Chudamaniram, S/o.late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, male, 26 years, Pvt.Employee, Flat No.208 Harischandra Towers Sajjapuram, Tanuku, W.G.Dt., Tanuku JCJC 4. Kondareddy Anasuya Prabhavathi, W/o.late Narasimha Murhty, Hindu, Female, 72 years. Flat No.208 Harischandra Towers Sajjapuram, Tanuku, W.G.Dt., Tanuku JCJC 5. Lukalapu Sankara Rao, S/o.late Appala Ram, Hindu. Male 34 years. Driver of TVS Victor Motor cycle bearing No. AP 07 AC 9667, Hindu Harischandra Towers ^' Pandit in C.J. Naidus School at Pallakonda Town, Srikakulam District, Palakonda JCJC. 6. Mannam Madhava, S/o.Malyadri, Hindu, Male, 35 years. Owner of TVS Victor Motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 AC 9667, D.No.8-12-15, Nehru Nagar, 8th lane, Guntur, Guntur District. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, by the judgment and decree dated 11 th day of September, 2017 M.V.O.P No. 1089 of 2011 on the file of the Tribunal of Motor Vehicle Accidents- cum - IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku. aggrieved passed in This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the material papers Gudi Srinivasu, on behalf of the Appellant and Sri. T Diwakar Reddy for in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Advocate, Respondent. This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:- 1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby allowed. 2. That there be no order as to costs. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents- cum - IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tanuku. 2. Two CD Copies vna i • HIGH COURT DATED:25/07/2025 DECREE MACMA NO. 427 OF 2025 5 06 SEP® yo mii <9 DISMISSING THE APPEAL APHC010160982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 427 OF 2025 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, aggrieved day of September, 2017 passed in th by the judgment and decree dated 11 M.V.O.P No. 1089 of 2011 on the file of the Tribunal of Motor Vehicle Accidents- cum - IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku. Between: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Manager, Anjaneya Towers, D.No.39-1-82/A, 4th Floor, M.G.Road, Venkateswarapuram, Labbipet, Vijayawada-520010 ...Appellant AND 1. Kondareddy Anasuya Prabhavathi, W/o.late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, 47 years. Housewife, Flat No.208 Sajjapuram, Tanuku, W.G.Dt., Tanuku JCJC. Harischandra Towers Female 2. Kondareddy Bharath Kumar, S/o.late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, male, 27 years. Software Engineer, Flat No.208 Sajjapuram, Tanuku, W.G.Dt., Tanuku JCJC. Harischandra Towers 3. Kondareddy Chudamaniram, S/o.late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, male, 26 years, Pvt.Employee, Flat No.208 Harischandra Towers Sajjapuram, Tanuku, W.G.Dt., Tanuku JCJC 4. Kondareddy Anasuya Prabhavathi, W/o.late Narasimha Murhty, Hindu Female, 72 years. Flat No.208 Harischandra Towers Sajjapuram Tanuku, W.G.Dt., Tanuku JCJC 5. Lukalapu Sankara Rao, S/o.late Appala Ram, Hindu. Male 34 Driver of TVS Victor Motor cycle bearing No. AP 07 AC 9667, Hindu Pandit in C.J. Naidus School at Pallakonda Town, Srikakulam District, Palakonda JCJC. years. 6. Mannam Madhava, S/o.Malyadri, Hindu, Male, 35 years. Owner of TVS Victor Motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 AC 9667, D.No.8-12-15, Nehru Nagar, 8th lane, Guntur, Guntur District. ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and Judgment passed in M.V.O.P No. 1089 of 2011 on the file of the Tribunal of Motor Vehicle Accidents- cum - IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tanuku dated 11th day of September, 2017. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. T DIWAKAR REDDY The Court made the following Order: r' APHC010160982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SEE [3506] ■JE4£i FRIDAY. THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 427/2025 Between: 1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, ANJANEYA TOWERS. D.NO.39-1-82/A, 4TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, VENKATESWARAPURAM, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA- 520010 ...APPELLANT AND 1.KONDAREDDY ANASUYA PRABHAVATHI, W/O.LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, HINDU, FEMALE 47 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, FLAT NO.208 HARISCHANDRA TOWERS SAJJAPURAM TANUKU JCJC. TANUKU, W.G.DT., 2.KONDAREDDY BHARATH KUMAR, S/O.LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, HINDU. MALE. 27 YEARS. SOFTWARE ENGINEER. FLAT NO.208 HARISCHANDRA TOWERS SAJJAPURAM. TANUKU. W.G.DT., TANUKU JCJC. 3.KONDAREDDY CHUDAMANIRAM, S/O.LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, 26 YEARS, PVT.EMPLOYEE, FLAT NO.208 TANUKU, W.G.DT., HINDU, MALE HARISCHANDRA TOWERS SAJJAPURAM TANUKU JCJC 4.KONDAREDDY ANASUYA PRABHAVATHI. W/O.LATE NARASIMHA FEMALE, 72 YEARS. FLAT NO.208 TANUKU. W.G.DT., MURHTY, HINDU, HARISCHANDRA TOWERS SAJJAPURAM TANUKU JCJC 2 5.LUKALAPU SANKARA RAO, S/0.LATE APPALA RAM, HINDU. MALE 34 YEARS, DRIVER OF TVS VICTOR MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. AP 07 AC 9667, HINDU PANDIT IN C.J. NAIDUS SCHOOL AT PALLAKONDA TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, PALAKONDA JCJC. 6.MANNAM MADHAVA, S/O.MALYADRI, HINDU, MALE, 35 YEARS. OWNER OF TVS VICTOR MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO. AP 07 AC 9667, D.NO.8-12-15, NEHRU NAGAR, 8TH LANE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 1l'^ day of September, 2017 passed in M.V.O.P No. 1089 of 2011 on the file of the Tribunal of Motor Vehicle Accidents- cum - IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, and pass such lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased may be pleased to 2651 days in filing the appeal against the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P No.1089 of 2011 to condone the delay of on the file of cum - IV Addl. District &the Tribunal of Motor Vehicle Accidents- Sessions Judge, Tanuku dated 11th day of September, such lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 pleased may be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and Judgment dated 4th day of March, 2024 passed in M.V.O.P No. 1089 of 2011 on the file of the Tribunal of Motor Vehicle Accidents- cum - IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tanuku dated 11th day of September, 2017, including execution proceedings, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. and pass such Counsel for the Appellant: 1.GUDI SRINIVASU Counsel for the Respondent(S); 3 1.TDIWAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGEMENT: I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND M.A.C.M.A.No.427 of 2025 This application is filed seeking to condone delay of 2651 days in preferring the appeal. ' The respondents/claimants have instituted l\/I.V.O.P.No.1089 of 2011 claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 19,85,000/- on account of death. The Tribunal after having considered the evidence adduced, by order dated 11.09.2017 awarded an amount of Rs. 15,41,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The present appeal is filed challenging the said order. 2. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent Nos.1 to 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after pronouncing the order on 11.09.2017, the certified copies of the judgment and records were obtained and were sent to Insurance Company by the counsel appearing before Tribunal, however, the same came to be misplaced and mixed up with other records. Later the concerned Legal Officer who was pursuing the matter resigned from the company only in the month of October, 2023. It was noticed that appeal was not preferred, so efforts were made to secure the certified 3. copies once again, accordingly, application was made on 03.11.2023. After copy being made ready, the judgment copy was delivered on 15.11.2023. Immediately thereafter, steps were taken to file the appeal and accordingly the \ \ 4 same came to be instituted on 26.03.2025. In the 2651 days. process, there is a delay of 4. While reiterating the sequences of affidavit filed in support of the application appellant/lnsurance Company submitted reasons narrated in para No.5 of the learned counsel for that as sufficient cause has been by taking lenient view and imposing demonstrated, the delay be condoned I reasonable conditions. 5. The respondents/claimants have application. filed counter opposing the said 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants while reiterating the contents of the counter submitted that inordinate delay of 7 3 months is clearly not explained in the affidavit filed i years and - in support of the I as it lacks and explains sufficient to be rejected. He further contended that application for condoning the delay for such delay, the same deserves cause even as per the pleadings made assuming that the certified copy was lost, the even then, as the same was issued same came to be applied for second time. on 15.11.2023, still there is the appeal, which is clearly unexplained. a delay of 497 days from the said date lodging of 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 8. The present appeal is filed with a delay of 2651 days, application explains the delay. For Para 5 of the proper appreciation Para 5 reads as under: 1109 2ni7“h,T Judgment was pronounced on lent me lame ot , misplaced and mixed with other records and Ifter that the are 5 Legal Officer of our company resigned from our company and as such our company could not file the appeal with in time. Recently, we came to know the said fact and instructed our counsel in lower court to obtain certified copies of decree and judgment again as the said copies are misplaced. The Lower court advocate filed copy application for certified copies on 03.11.2023, stamps were called for 14.11.2023, Stamps filed on 15.11.2023, the copy was made ready on 15.11.2023, and it was delivered on 15.11.2023. After obtaining the judgment and the decree from the Tribunal along with the opinion of our Advocate on record, the same was sent to the Regional office and then forwarded to Head office and after getting the legal opinion, finally sent to the Regional Office, Hyderabad and the said procedure lead to a delay of 2651 days in filing this appeal and this delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to the administrative reasons. ” The delay has to be explained and sufficient cause be indicated for condoning the delay. In the explanation, it has not been explained. However it has not been stated as when initial application has been applied for certified 9. copy and when the concerned official has resigned from the company, it is stated that second application came to be made on 03.11.2023, definitely the period between 11.09.2017 till 03.11.2023 is clearly unexplained. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that even thereafter when the order was made ready and delivered on 15.11.2023, appellant had taken nearly almost more than an year i.e., 497 days to prefer appeal. The said period is also neither adverted to nor explained with sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court / \ \ 6 in Union of India & anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his Lr\ in particular, Para Nos.24 to 27 & 35, reads as under: “24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay. 25. It hardly matters whether a litigant, is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings. 26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own periodof limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non- deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is ^ equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are / ^2024 see Online sc 489 7 based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. 35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case. ” Further reliance is placed on H.Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A.Krishnaiah Since deceased by Lrs.^ Judgment, in particular on Para Nos. 15 & 16,. 10. “15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. 16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for . condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. ’’ I 11. Though learned counsel for the appellant tried to convince the Court by addressing merits of the matter, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits ^2025 see Online Se54 8 unless the inordinate delay is condoned. The said view is fortified by Hon’ble Apex Court in judgments as referred to above by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. This Court finds that the delay of 2651 days is not properly explained and that the reasons mentioned in Para 5 of the affidavit does not constitute to be sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the same. 12. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed and so also the Appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents- cum - IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tanuku. (with records) 2. One CC to Sri. Gudi Srinivasu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. T Diwakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The V.R Section, Section Officer, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Two CD Copies PR vna HIGH COURT DATED:25/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA NO. 427 OF 2025 A 0 6 SEP 2025 .. DISMISSING THE APPEAL