- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7329 MFA No. 9625 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9625 OF 2025 (MV- D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M LAKSHMANAMURTHY S/O.MUNIANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60YEARS, RESIDENT NO.29, VISHWANATHAPURA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU – 562 110. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BALARAJ A C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT PUSHPA S/O.LATE.RUDRESH @ RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53YEARS, HOTEL BUSINESS, NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE, KOTE BADAVANE, HOSADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527. 2. SRI.ANJANKUMAR, S/O.LATE.RUDRESH @ RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE, KOTE BADAVANE, HOSADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527. 3. SRI.D.R.SHIVARAJ, S/O LATE RUDRESH@ RUDRAPPA AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE KOTE BADAVANE HOSADURGA TOWN Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7329 MFA No. 9625 of 2025 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 527. 4. SMT.INDIRAMMA W/O.LATE.THIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 76YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK, NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE, KOTE BADAVANE, HOSADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527. 5. DIVISIONAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.25/1, 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.2, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.24.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 88/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, HOSADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,48,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FORM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This application (I.A. No. 1/2025) seeks condonation of a delay of 1304 days in filing the appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7329 MFA No. 9625 of 2025 2. The appeal is preferred by the owner of the vehicle (Respondent No. 1 herein). The Tribunal, by its award dated 04.03.2021, adopted the "pay and recover" principle. It held Respondent No. 1 (the owner) liable to pay compensation in view of the terms of the insurance policy, while directing Respondent No. 2 (the insurer) to deposit the awarded amount and subsequently recover it from Respondent No. 1. The insurer has since deposited the amount and is now seeking recovery from the owner. 3. Aggrieved, the owner filed this appeal on 21.12.2025, resulting in a delay of approximately three and a half years (1304 days). In the application for condonation, the appellant-owner states that the Tribunal fastened liability upon him based on its finding that the lorry driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. He further states that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he could not contact his counsel and was under the impression that liability would ultimately be fastened on the insurance company as the policy was in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7329 MFA No. 9625 of 2025 existence. He also cites financial constraints and the fact that the driver was not made a party to the proceedings as contributing factors for the delay. He now claims to be in possession of the driver’s licence, which he states is an LMV licence, though it was not produced before the Tribunal. 4. Having considered the submissions, this Court is not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 1304 days. The reasons advanced by the appellant are neither sufficient nor convincing. While he claims to have been located 400 kilometers away from his counsel, he could have contacted him via telephone or other means to ascertain the status of his case, but he failed to do. Litigant cannot take advantage of his own negligence. Further, seeking relief from this Court after a lapse of three and a half years, without a satisfactory explanation cause for each day's delay, is not stated. Reasons stated for condoning delay is neither convincing nor satisfactory. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7329 MFA No. 9625 of 2025 5. The appellant has contested the matter before the Trial Court and cannot now plead ignorance of the proceedings or their consequence. The alleged discovery of the driver’s licence at this belated stage does not justify the extraordinary delay in invoking the appellate jurisdiction. 6. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in I.A. No. 1 of 2025. The application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41