- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8318 MFA No. 5498 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5498 OF 2025(MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. BHARATHI W/O VISHWANATH, NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT SULIKUNTE VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARAPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUSHMITHA G., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.722/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, KGF, C/C. ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8318 MFA No. 5498 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 1606 days, i.e., four years and four months. 2. She has stated that her trial Court lawyer advised her to file an appeal within 90 days. Accordingly, she approached Sri Chikkappaji Gowda, Advocate, Bengaluru, in January 2019 and signed the appeal papers in the first week of February 2019. Thereafter, she did not receive any information from her lawyer regarding the status of the case. She attempted to contact him over the phone on several occasions, but received a message that the number did not exist. In June 2025, she visited the office and found it closed. She later came to know that the advocate had expired on 14.11.2021. She then contacted her trial Court lawyer and engaged another counsel to file - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8318 MFA No. 5498 of 2025 this appeal. It is contended that this constitutes sufficient cause for the delay. 3. The respondent has filed an objection contending that the delay is more than six years and has not been properly explained. It is further submitted that the advocate passed away in 2021, yet the petitioner failed to file the appeal until 2025, and no valid explanation has been offered for this period. The respondent prays for dismissal of the application. 4. Heard the arguments on both sides. 5. The claim before the Trial Court arose out of injuries sustained by the petitioner herein. A global compensation of ₹12,500/- was awarded in respect of the injuries, one of which was simple in nature. The petitioner contends that she entrusted the file to her counsel in the year 2019 and that the advocate passed away in 2021. However, she came to know of his demise only in 2025 when she visited the office and inquired about the status. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8318 MFA No. 5498 of 2025 6. A litigant is expected to be vigilant in prosecuting his or her case. If the petitioner did not receive any response on the telephone, she ought to have visited the office in person either in 2020 or in 2021. Her inaction until 2025 reflects a lack of due diligence. The law does not assist those who sleeps over their rights, and a party cannot take advantage of their own neglect. 7. In view of the above, the explanation offered for the inordinate delay of four years and four months is neither convincing nor satisfactory. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in view of the dismissal of I.A.No.1/2025. Consequently, MFA No. 5498/2025 also stands dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27