- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29574 MFA No. 8675 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8675 OF 2017(MV-I) BETWEEN: IBRAHIM S/O. PODIYABBA MAJOR R/O. ALADIMANE ULLALA KODI, ULLALA MANGALORE …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDESH SHETTY T., ADVOCATE, (ABSENT)) AND: 1. SUBRAMANYA S/O. SUBBUDEVARU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O. MOHANDAS COMPOUND SJOVANAGARA, MOODUSHEDDE POST MANGALORE-575 028 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH SRIRAM SITE OFFICE 2A, PRAKASHAM ROAD CHENNAI-600 017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29574 MFA No. 8675 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31/08/2010, PASSED IN MVC NO.1096/2005, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT & III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,33,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.72,100/- ONLY FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL4 REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is present. 2. I.A.No.1/2017 is filed to condone the delay of 2543 days i.e., 6 years 11 months 23 days and objections are filed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3. This application is filed by the owner of the vehicle and he stated that entire liability was fastened on him and he never engaged the counsel at any point of time and later, when notice in respect of execution petition was served upon him, he came to know about the judgment and award and he tried to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29574 MFA No. 8675 of 2017 obtain the certified copy of the vakalath but the trial Court records were destroyed. As such, there is delay of 2543 days. 4. In an objection filed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, they stated that in the judgment at paragraph No.3, it was clearly stated that respondent No.1 is duly represented by the counsel but he did not file the written statement. Therefore, his contention that he is not aware of the pendency of the claim petition, cannot be accepted. It is further stated that the delay is abnormal and the reasons stated by him are not convincing and he does not deserve any sympathy. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also relied upon the citation in the case of Union of India and another vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR in S.L.P. (Civil) No.21096/2019 in which, the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for condoning the delay as follows:- "33. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, this Court made the following observations: “21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: 21.1.(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29574 MFA No. 8675 of 2017 while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2.(ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. 21.3.(iii)Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4.(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5.(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6.(vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7.(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8.(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29574 MFA No. 8675 of 2017 apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9.(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10.(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11.(xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12.(xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13.(xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: 22.1.(a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29574 MFA No. 8675 of 2017 condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 22.2.(b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3.(c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. 22.4.(d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.” 5. In this case, the owner of the vehicle simply contended that he never engaged the counsel. He also stated that he could not file the vakalath as the records were destroyed but trial Court records are available with the Court. When the entire liability is fastened against him, he approached this Court with a delay of 6 years 11 months and reasons stated by him for abnormal delay are neither convincing nor satisfactory and it appears that he approached the Court only to prolong the litigation. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the application and accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29574 MFA No. 8675 of 2017 6. In view of dismissal of I.A.No.1/2017, MFA No.8675/2017 is also dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of main appeal, I.A.No.2/2017 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12