- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33608 MFA No. 1359 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1359 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. MADEGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT JAVANIKUPPE VILLAGE, RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT PIN-571 107. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. ABDUL KARIM S/O ABDUL SATTAR, NALABAND MOHALLA, HUNSUR TOWN-571 105 MYSORE DISTRICT (DRIVER OF LORRY NO.MEG-7963). 2. SRI.VITTAL PAI S/O RAMANANDA APRABHU, NO.4, 8TH CROSS, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE CITY PIN-570 001 (OWNER OF LORRY NO.MEG-7963) 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD B.N.ROAD, SUNDAR ARCADE P.B.NO.73, MYSURU CITY (INSURER OF TEMPO KA.12.A1709) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33608 MFA No. 1359 of 2018 4. MRS.AFZAL AHMAD S/O ABDUL SATTAR, HUNSUR FABRICATION INDUSTRIES, HUNSUR GAS COMPOUND HUNSUR TOWN-571 105 MYSURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI., ADVOCATE FOR R3, V/O DTD:31.03.2023 NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.05.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.25/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR-DN) & JMFC & THE ADDITIONAL MACT, HUNSUR, SITTING AT PERIYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 05.05.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC and the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna in MVC No.25 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal has granted amount of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33608 MFA No. 1359 of 2018 2. In this appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2018 is filed to condone the delay of 3112 days in filing the appeal. It is stated by the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal vide award dated 05.05.2009 granted compensation. But, he could not meet his advocate due to severe pain and injury. As he was under treatment in 2017, for the first time, he met his advocate and came to know that an amount of Rs.1,38,000/- was granted and the said amount was not even deposited. As such, he wrote a letter to the District Court and in turn, the District Court sent a reply on 18.02.2017 calling him to appear on 28.02.2017. Accordingly, he appeared before the District Court on 28.02.2017. It is further contended that he also met his advocate at Hunsur and filed voucher for the withdrawal of compensation and received the amount on 08.09.2017 and obtained certified copy of the award on 27.12.2017. As he sustained injury due to his left leg, lost his job and he could not maintain himself. Therefore, he settled in their village, Javani Kuppe, Periyapatna taluk and thus, there is delay. 3. The appellant-claimant also filed a better affidavit to condone the delay of 3112 days in fling the appeal by reiterating almost the same facts. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33608 MFA No. 1359 of 2018 4. In the objection filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that the delay is abnormal, i.e. more than 8 years. The claimant has not produced any document to show that he was under treatment for a period of 8 years and he has slept over the matter for 8 years and now, came up with lame excuses. He has also not stated as to when he left Bangalore. 5. Admittedly, MVC No.25 of 2009 was disposed of on 05.05.2009 itself and an amount of Rs.1,38,000/- was granted by the Tribunal to the petitioner. No doubt, he sustained crush injuries. But he engaged the counsel before the trial court. It is for him to contact his counsel through phone. But he failed to do so. He kept quiet till 2018 and stated that he addressed a letter to the District Court and also received the compensation amount. Then only he obtained certified copy and filed this application. It is not the case of the claimant that he was under treatment and not in a condition to move for a total period of 8 years. The claimant stated that his wife was supporting him. He should have taken the help of any of his wife's relatives to file an appeal and he should have given instructions to his counsel through phone, but he failed to do so. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33608 MFA No. 1359 of 2018 6. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO.21096 OF 2019 in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his Legal representatives, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon the judgment in the case of Esha Bhattacharya Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 , wherein several guidelines were also framed, which read as follows: “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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33608 MFA No. 1359 of 2018 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 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33608 MFA No. 1359 of 2018 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 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.” 7. This is a case of abnormal delay of more than 8 years. He simply stated that he could not meet his advocate. The law - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33608 MFA No. 1359 of 2018 will not help the persons, who sleeps over the matter. In this case, the petitioner kept quiet for more than 8 years and now, came up with this application. Therefore, this Court finds that reasons stated by the petitioner-claimant for abnormal delay of 8 years are neither convincing nor are satisfactory. Therefore, the delay application needs to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2018 filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed. Consequently, this appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29