Prakash & Anr. Vs. Managing Director K.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18234/1999
(From the judgement and order dated 17/11/1998 in MFA3251/97 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
(From the judgement and order dated 17/11/1998 in MFA3251/97 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
Petitioner: Prakash & Anr.
Respondent: Managing Director K.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
Apeal: Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18234/1999
(From the judgement and order dated 17/11/1998 in MFA3251/97 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
(From the judgement and order dated 17/11/1998 in MFA3251/97 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
Judges: K.T.THOMAS & M.B.SHAH,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 13, 2000
Appearances:
Through proxy counsel Mr. P. Mahale, advocate for Petitioner (s)
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLE LAW
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Appeal – Delay – Condonation – Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding compensation – Not satisfied with quantum of compensation petitioners appealing to High Court – Appeal found to be barred by limitation – Court dismissing the appeal for want of explanation for the long delay of 416 days. SLP to Supreme Court. Held there being no adequate reason for condoning the long delay no interference called for with the decision of the High Court.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This is a case where the petitioners claimed Rs. 1,06,000/- as compensation awardable to them in respect of a motor accident in which brother of the petitioners died. That amount was granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, petitioners filed an appeal before the High Court but the High Court found that the appeal was barred by limitation and there was no explanation for an inordinate delay of 416 days. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. It is against the said order that this SLP has been filed.
2. Learned Counsel contended that petitioners are entitled to ask more amount than what they claimed in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. That question of law is left open.
3. All the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which found no adequate reason for condoning the delay of 416 days. The SLP is accordingly dismissed.
Court Master.
1. This is a case where the petitioners claimed Rs. 1,06,000/- as compensation awardable to them in respect of a motor accident in which brother of the petitioners died. That amount was granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, petitioners filed an appeal before the High Court but the High Court found that the appeal was barred by limitation and there was no explanation for an inordinate delay of 416 days. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. It is against the said order that this SLP has been filed.
2. Learned Counsel contended that petitioners are entitled to ask more amount than what they claimed in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. That question of law is left open.
3. All the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which found no adequate reason for condoning the delay of 416 days. The SLP is accordingly dismissed.
Court Master.
