Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause and due diligence; failure to track case status after entering appearance constitutes negligence and does not justify an enormous delay.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102787 OF 2014 (MV)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV Act 1988 , AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.10.2009, PASSED IN MVC.NO.361/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND ADDITIONAL MACT, AT HUBLI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,67,110/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT & ETC.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 30.10.2009 passed in MVC.no.361/2006 by First Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Additional MACT, Hubli, (‘Tribunal’, for short), this appeal is filed.

There is delay of 1735 days in filing appeal. I.A.no.1/2014 filed for its condonation.

Sri SM Kalwad, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by owner of vehicle – Jeep bearing no.KA-25/P-2134 being aggrieved not only by apportionment of contributory negligence, but fastening of liability on owner of vehicle instead of insurer. In affidavit filed in support of I.A.no.1/2014, it was stated that appellant was 70 years of age and running a small hotel in village at time of accident, who had later shifted his business to Tamil Nadu, on incurring loss. Only when he had returned to village to manage his properties, he was served with notice in Execution Petition no.148/2014 on 01.10.2014. And until then he was under bonafide impression that claim petition was still pending. Immediately thereafter, he verified status, obtained certified copies and instructed counsel to prefer appeal. In process, there was delay and same was beyond his control and prayed for its condonation.

On other hand, Sri Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned counsel for respondent no.4 opposed application on ground that delay was not properly explained though it was enormous and prayed for rejection.

Heard learned counsel, perused application/affidavit as well as objections.

As noted above, only reason assigned by appellant owner of vehicle involved in accident is that due to loss sustained in hotel business, he had shifted business to Tamil Nadu and therefore unaware of status of claim petition.

Perusal of record would reveal that appellant was duly served with notice and had entered appearance. Such being case, it is for appellant to maintain contact with counsel to find out status as a matter of diligence. Failure to exercise due diligence would amount to negligence. Such being case, reason assigned for delay cannot be stated to be beyond control of appellant. Since there is enormous delay of 1735 days, I do not find any good or sufficient cause to condone same. Though learned counsel for appellant vehemently sought to plead on merits of matter. Same cannot be considered. I.A.no.1/2014 is therefore rejected. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for disbursement.