IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED TI-IIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER. 2910 BEFORE T VT THE I-ION' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SRE13NI'VASE Miscellaneous First Appeal Ne»..»V5892_"ofCJ_ K " Between V " " V V' ' Vinaya Gandhi, S/ o. T.T. Karigowda Aged about 44 Years, Shan thinagar, ' Badavane, Hassan. And (By: 1. Premae .A . M W / o§"'V.V'S.uL=.banna' V, ._E No. 286;-1.1 Biocfx 6th Cross. Iii-MT Layoutfi/'idyaranyapura1n, A Bangaioife - 13 Manager 'I_'he N--eW India Insurance Co. Ltd., "Divisional Office. No.8, No.47, Gopal Complex, 2nd floor, AA Bazar Street, Yeshwanthpura, = Bangalore ~ 22. Respondents
[By Sri. M Narayanappa, Adv. for R2.
notice to R1 is dispensed with)
%,.
This MFA is filed U/ S 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and award dated 30.06.2005 passed in MVC
No.5529/2004 on the file of XIII Additional Small Cause
Judge 8: Member, MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the
claim petition for compensation and Seeking
enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for
the Court, delivered the following: .
JUDGMENT ‘”” T
This appeal is by the
enhancement of compensati.o’n,
2. There is an inordinate”‘dela3f”of 14lt9″dayV§s in filing
the record that the Tribunal
passed’ the 2 judgment and award on
30.;OE’>.2005.’-» _ iirstzrer of the offending vehicle has
‘the award amount on 5.11.2005 and the
withdrawn the same on 15.03.2006 as
stated tirrtthe affidavit filed in support of the delay
‘applieation. It shows that the claimant has filed this
tit’-appeal on 17.08.2009 nearly 31/2 years after
2 withdrawing the award amount. Therefore the reasons
assigned by the appellant in the affidavit filed in
(g,
V. grb_J/a_,
support of delay application do not constitute sufficient
ground to condone the inordinate delay of 1419 days in
filing the appeal.
3. Even if the matter is considered on ‘tlae”c
injuries sustained by the claimant ‘s2,1cl”i, as fi*’act.u’re’ of:
grid to 43: metacarpal bonepof leftVha:_id and
left side ribs and other injufieVs’»i.n the
in the year 2001 they”Trib_o.n’alTt’:lia%i’-gjghtlyliiayyarded a
compensation of at 6% p.a.
and there’ lppnoifl idiotV-hlenhancernent of
compensation… it
4. Accpi-cimgiy; is dismissed as devoid of
merit ‘both on of delay as well as on merit.
Sd/5
Judge’