- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21913 MFA No. 4271 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4271 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: S.R. UMA, W/O NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AT: SBM TKG LAYOUT BRANCH, SAHUKAR CHANNAIAH LAYOUT, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAMESH M.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAKESH, S/O N NAGARAJU, 14 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN: N. NAGARAJU, S/O M NANJAPPA, RESIDING AT: NO.7/408, PARAMAHAMSA ROAD, KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313. 2. IMRAN @ IMRAN LPASHA, S/O FAYAZ, 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.7/6, HOSAKURUBAGERE, KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313. 3. THE MANAGER, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21913 MFA No. 4271 of 2016 SONA MOTORS, NO.1071, JAYALAKSHMI VILAS ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM, MYSURU - 570 001. 4. MANAGER, SRI SARVAR, UNIQUE AUTO WORKS, SAWDAY ROAD, MANDIMOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.Y. SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2023, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.72/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KOLLEGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.90,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard on I.A.No.1/2016. 2. I.A.No.1/2016 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1115 days in filing the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21913 MFA No. 4271 of 2016 appeal. The said application is supported by the affidavit of appellant. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is mentioned that after filing of the written statement in MVC No.72/2010, Advocate representing the appellant did not appear before the Tribunal and prosecute the case on her behalf. She came to know about the judgment passed in MVC 72/2010 only on receipt of summons in Execution case No.198/2013, (during March, 2016). Thereafter, she obtained the records and filed this appeal. 4. The reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application are not just and sufficient to condone the delay of 1115 days. It is not the duty of the Advocate to prosecute the case, but it is the responsibility and duty of the party to the proceedings especially when the matter was pending before Trial Court. The presence of the party is very much required at each and every stage of the proceedings before Trial Court. Merely blaming an advocate on his behind that he was negligent in representing the case is not proper/correct. It is the duty of the party to contact the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21913 MFA No. 4271 of 2016 Advocate and ascertain the stage of the case or to see whether their presence is required in the matter during trial. Courts are normally condoning delay if it is stated that due to mistake of counsels, party did not came to know about status of the case, on the ground that litigant shall not suffer due to mistake of counsels. Considering the materials available on record, it appears that due to sheer negligence of appellant, she did not effectively prosecute before trial Court. No notice was issued to the counsel, asking as to why he did not appear on her behalf before the Trial Court. Therefore, the reasons assigned are not sufficient to condone the delay of 1115 days in filing the appeal. It deserves to be rejected. 5. Normally while considering application to condone the delay in filing the appeal it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. In this case, the RC of the offending vehicle is standing in the name of the appellant. Her contention is that she sold the said vehicle to respondent Nos.3 and 4 but they did not change the name in RC. Hence, she is not liable to pay compensation. Even if the said contention is accepted, then also her contention is not tenable to the whole world RC owner is responsible to pay the compensation in accident occurred by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21913 MFA No. 4271 of 2016 involvement of the said vehicle and at the most, the RC holder will be at liberty to recover it from the concerned persons to whom he or she sold the vehicle. Therefore, even on merits also the appeal is not tenable. For the above said discussions, I pass the following: ORDER I. I.A.No.1/2016 is dismissed, consequently, appeal is also dismissed. II. Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the tribunal for disbursement of the claim. III. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4