- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6519 MFA No. 103987 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103987 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUDHA W/O. JOTIBA SAVANT, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PEERANWADI, TAL: DIST. BELGAUM. 2. KUMARI MEGHA D/O. JOTIBA SAVANT, AGE 18 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. PEERANWADI, TAL: DIST: BELGAUM. - APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S. NAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. YESHWANT S/O. SURYA CHODANKAR, AGE MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 96/6, TAL WADA, COLVALE BARDEZ GOA, DIST. GOA, NORTH GOA-PIN-403513. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, PIN-590001. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHUKESHWAR A. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI DATED 04.09.2015 IN MVC NO.1524/2013 & ETC. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6519 MFA No. 103987 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) I have heard arguments of the Advocates appearing for both the sides. 2. There is delay of 2459 days in filing the appeal. The petition was disposed of by the Tribunal on 04.09.2015. Therefore effect of COVID-19 is no way intercepted in filing the appeal before limitation period. It is hard truth that claimant no.1 has lost her son in the accident. That is why she has filed application for claiming compensation. The said child died on 07.04.2013 in the accident and she was able to file claim petition on 01.08.2013 before the Tribunal, i.e., within a span of around four months. She prosecuted the case before the Tribunal without difficulties. The said petition was disposed of on 04.09.2015. Thereafter she went in depression due to death of her son and hence could not file appeal in time is not acceptable reason. The pandemic COVID-19 affected during March, 2020. Before that there - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6519 MFA No. 103987 of 2022 was about five years’ time. During that time also appeal was not filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Cheluvaraju v/s The Manager M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others reported in 2016 ACJ 2039. Relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Privy Council this Curt has held as under: “10. The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.” Principle of law laid down in the above judgment is aptly applicable to the facts of this case. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6519 MFA No. 103987 of 2022 4. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 2023 to condone the delay of 2479 days are not just and sufficient but disclose negligence of appellant. It is inordinate delay without any justification. Hence, I.A. No. 1/2023 is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE Bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33