- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5441 MFA No. 8377 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8377 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. RAMU @ RAMLU S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, 5TH CROSS RAMARAO LAYOUT CAUVERY NAGARA KATHIRIGUPPE, BENGALURU-25 PERMANENT ADDRESS: NO.1-44, AMMAPALLI, YADGIRI TALUK GULBARGA DISTRICT-585 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.V. NAIK, ADVOCATE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. KARIYAPPA S/O NINGAPPA Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5441 MFA No. 8377 of 2022 MAJOR NO.47, KAKAMARANAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA-42-2708). 2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.20/1, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN OPP. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 STANDS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 06.01.2026.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.6729/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5441 MFA No. 8377 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2022 This petition is filed seeking the Court to condone the delay of 2650 days in filing the appeal. 2. Sri.K.V.Naik who represented Sri.Chandrashekhar.R, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant as well as Sri.L.Sreekanta Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 were heard on 20.01.2026. Also gone through the statement of objections that were filed by respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. He filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,22,500/- only as compensation. The petitioner was advised by his counsel to prefer appeal. However, petitioner could not contact his counsel to prefer appeal immediately. Subsequently when he contacted, he came - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5441 MFA No. 8377 of 2022 to know that the period of limitation to file appeal is completed and therefore, he has to file appeal with a petition to condone delay and thus he filed a petition to condone the delay. Learned counsel also submitted that due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, he could not meet his counsel immediately on disposal of the case by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the case was disposed of by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the year 2013 and the appeal is preferred in the year 2022. Learned counsel also submitted that no convincing reason is shown by the petitioner so as to condone such inordinate delay. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner failed to produce any medical record to show that due to his ill- health he could not contact his counsel. Learned counsel also contended that if such inordinate delay is condoned, it would open flood gates and every party will utilise the order of this Court and prefer appeals at their whims and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5441 MFA No. 8377 of 2022 fancies. Learned counsel thereby sought to dismiss the petition. 5. Admittedly, the appeal is filed with a delay of more than 7 years. No material is on record to show that the petitioner due to his ill-health or due to the alleged disability could not prefer appeal within time. Law is more than well established that the Courts are required to adopt liberal approach where the delay is minimal and where the delay is inordinate, only on being satisfied that there are convincing reasons, such delay can be condoned. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2024) 12 SCC 336 between Pathapati Subba Reddy and Others vs. Special Deputy Collector dealing with similar issue at para 28 of the judgment held as under: "28. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: 28.1. Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5441 MFA No. 8377 of 2022 28.2. A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; 28.3. The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; 28.4. In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; 28.5. Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; 28.6. Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; 28.7. Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and 28.8. Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision." 7. No doubt Motor Vehicles Act is a welfare legislation aimed at protecting the rights and interests of the claimants. However, where the claimant has slept over - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5441 MFA No. 8377 of 2022 his rights and suddenly wakes up and seeks the Court to condone his negligent attitude, that cannot be done. In the case on hand, this Court does not find any reasons more so convincing reasons to condone the inordinate delay of more than 7 years in preferring the appeal. Thus this Court is of the view that the petition lacks merits. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:SM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12