MACMA/16/2022 of Sri. Gummadi Uppal Reddy Vs Singireddy Malla Reddy (Died per LRs) on 31 December 2025

COMMON ORDER:

The application uide I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed to condone the delay of (508) days in filing the appeal against the order, dt.26.lO.2OIB in OP.No.93 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge at Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal'). Brief facts of the Case :

2. The petitioner/appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor Cycle bearing No.AP

29 AF 2347. The respondents/claimants herein had filed a claim petition in O. P. No . 93 of 2O 1 3 before the Tribunal seeking compensatron on account of the death of the deceased_ Singireddy Ma1la Reddy deceased. The said claim petition was partly allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned award granting compensation of Rs.6,00 ,OOO l- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7 .5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of r ealrzatiorr, frxing joint and severa_l liability on the petitioner/respondent No.2, being the owner, and the Srh respondent/ respondent No. 1, being the driver of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed by the petitioner/ appellant.

3. Along with appeal, the petitioner/appellant filed the underlying interlocutory application uid.e I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking condonation of delay of 5OB days.

4. In the affidavit filed in support the appiication, it is stated that after completion of his chief-examination and cross_ examination on 16.02.2018, he was under the bona fide belief, based on the assurance of his counsel that he would be informed about the disposal of the O.P., and thereafter he did not make further enquiries with his counsel.

5. It is further contended that only in the month of May, 2021, upon receipt of notice in E.P. No. 284 of 2021 filed for attachment of his immovable property, the petitioner/appellant came to know about the disposal of the claim petition. It is further contended that when he attempted to contact his earlier counsel regarding the same, there was no response. Due to the prevailing pandemic situation, the petitioner/ appellant thereafter approached another advocate, Sri G. Ramu, who, upon examining the matter, advised that there were good and tenable grounds to challenge the alt'ard, and on his advice, the petitioner/ appellant obtained certified copies and hled the present appeal along with the application for condonation of delay.

6. It is further stated that, while computing the delay, the petitioner/appellant has excluded the period from 15.03'2020 to O2.1O.2O21 in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2O2O ' by order, dt.O8.O3.2O2 1 and subsequent orders, whereby the period of limitation stood extended on account of the COVID 19 paldemic situation. The appellant, therefore, contends that the dclay was neither rn,iiful nor deliberate, but occurred due to the circumstances explained above, and accordingly seeks condonation of the delay of 508 days. 7 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents, despite service of notice. Perused the material available on record

8. it is evident from the record that the petitioner/ appellant actively participated in the proceedings before the Tribuna-l and had adduced his evidence by way of chief-examination and cross-examination, which concluded on 16.O2.2OI8. The explanation offered is that thereafter he did not pursue the matter on the premise that his counsel rvould inform him about the disposal of the O.P. However, such an expianation cannot be accepted as sufficient cause. A litigant who has participated in the proceedings 1S expected to remain vigilant and take reasonable steps to follou, up the case.

9. It is also evident that the appellant claims to have acquired knowledge of the award only upon receipt of notice in the execution proceedings. Mere reliance on the alleged assurance of the counsel does not absolve the litigant of the responsibility to diligently prosecute the matter

10. The plea that knorvledge of the award was gained only upon receipt of notice in the execution proceedings does not satisfactorily explain the prolonged inaction. The record does not disclose any acceptable justification for the delay, and non- communication by counsel, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone such inordinate delav. i 1. In Pathapati Subba Redd.g (Died) bg Legal Representatiaes & Others u. Speciag Deputg Collector (LA)1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that condonation of delay cannot be gralted on equitable considerations or on grounds of hardship, and that a right or remedy not exercised or availed within the prescribed period or for a prolonged period, must come to an end or cease to exist. t (2024) 12 Supreme Court Cases 3i6 r

L2. The Honble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar & Anr v. Ved Prakash2, while dealing with a similar situation of condoning the de1a1'of (53a) days held as under: " 1 O. It appeors tttct.t tLLe entire blame has been throu.tn on the hectd of the aduocate utho tuas appeaing for the petitioners in the tial courl. We haue noticed ouer a peiod of time a tendencg on the part of the Litigants to blame their lawgers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before tlw court. Euen- if we assume for a moment that the corur:ented lou.tger u.tas careless or negLigent, this, by itself, connot be a ground to condone long an.d inordinate delag as the litigant ou)es a duty to be uigilant of his outn ights and is expected to be equallg uigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court irritictted at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be pennitted to throlL) the entire blame on the heod of the aduocate and the-reby disoun him at any time ond seek relief.

11. In the aforesaid context, ue maA refer to a decision of thi-s Courl in the cose of Salil Duttd a. T.M. & M.C. Priaqte Ltd. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 185, u.therein this Court obserued as under: "8. The aduocate is the agent of the partg. His acts and stotements, made Luithin the limits of authoity giuen to him, are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party uho engage him. It i.s tnte that in certain situatiorts, the courl may, in the interest of justice, set asid.e a dismlssal order or an ex porte decree notulithstanding tle negligence and/ or misdemeanour of the aduocate uthere it fi.nds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is no such absolute rule that a partA can disoun its ' S.r-.1. ictvtt-) Nos 915-9 j6 {)F 2 o2t.d t.2t.r1.2024

I I

aduocate at onA time and seek relief' No such absolute immunity can bb recognized. Such an absolute rule tt-tould make tie utorking of the sgstem extremelg dffiailt' The obseruations made in Rafiq IAIR 1981 SC 1400] must not be understood as an absolute proposition' As ue houe mentioned- hereinaboue, this uas an ongoing suit posted for final hearing after a lapse of seu-en -gears of its

- institution. It utas not o second appeal filed by a uillager residing autog from the city, ulere the court is located' rhe defendait ls also not a ntstic ignorant uillager but a piuate limited compang raith its head olfice at Calcutta -itsetf and. m(tnaged bg educated businessmen. utho know uthire their interest ties. lt is euident that uhen their applications u)ere not deposed of before taking up the suit |oi final heaing theg felt piqued and refused to appear -before the .oui. Moy be' it uLas port of their delaging toLtics as alleged bg the plaintiff' May be noL But one thing is clear theg chose to non cooperote uith the court' Uaing adopted such a stand toutards the court, the defeniant io" no ight to ask its indulg.ence' Putting ttre entire blame upon the o-d.uocate and trying to make it out as if they tttere totallg unctwore of tLe nature or significani of the proceedings is a theory uthich cannot bJ Lccepted ond ought not to haue been accepted'" (Emphasis suPPlied)

12. As regards the laut of limitotion, ue maA refer to the decision of this Court in Bharo:t Barrel & Dntm MFG co' a' The Emplogees State Insurqnce Corporation, (1971) 2 SCC 860' utherein this Court held as under: "Tlrc necessitg for enacting peiods of limitation is to ensure that ictions are commenced toithin a partiatlar peiod, firstlg to assure the auailability of euidence -doanmeitory- as ttell os orol to enable the defendant to contest the ilaim agoinst him; secondlg to giue effect to the pinciple that lattt does not assist a perso n rtho is inactiue -ond -sleeps ouer his ights bg allouing them ttthen cha enged or disputed to remain donnont uithout asse*iig them in -a Court of tau' Tle principle uhich forms *L basis of this rule is expressed in the moximum 'rioilantibus, non dennientibus, jura subueniunt (ttrc latus oiu" n b to those utho are roatchful and not to those tuho -sleepl it erepre, ttrc object of the statutes of limitotions is

l0 to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as olso to discourage ond suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims." (Emphasis supplied)"

13. Further, the rcliance placed by the petitioner/ appellant on the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civi1) No. 3 of 2O2O extending the period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, does not support his case The said directions were issued to safeguard the litigants who rvere prevented from initiating proceedings within the prescribed period owing to the exceptional circumstances arising from the par-rdemic. Such benefit cannot be extended to a litigant u'ho had already allowed the limitation period to expire rvell belore 15.03.2020

14. In the present case, a substantial portion of the delay had occurred prior to the outbreak of the pandemic. The delay from the date of the award till 15.03.2020 remains unexplained. The extension ol limitation granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be relied upon to condone delay attributable to inaction or negligence that eristed independent of the pandemic.

15. The plea that knorvledge ol the award was acquired only upon receipt of notice in the execution proceedings further indicates lack of due diligence A party to the proceedings, who had actively participated therein, cannot remain inactive for years together and thereafter seek indulgence of the Court by invoking the benefit of the pandemic related orders.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistentiy held that the orders extending limitation during the pandemic do not create a fresh cause of action, nor do they revive remedies that had already become time-barred. The extension was procedural in nature and cannot be construed as a blanket condonation of delay irrespective of the conduct of the litigant.

17. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the explanation furnished by the petitioner/ appellant does not satisfactorily account for the delay. The circumstances pleaded do not establish that the delay was beyond his control. On the contrary, the delay appears to have occurred due to negligence and lack of due diligence, and therefore does not warrant condonation.

18. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application uide IA.No.2 of 2022 is dismissed. Consequently, the MACMA stands dismissed.

t2 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPY' One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Sri Justice SUDDALA C (For His Lordship,s kind perusal) SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASS T NT REGISTRAR E TION OFFICER PATHI RAO To,

1. The chairman r\,4otor Accident craims Tribunal-cum-l Additionar District J udge, at Nalgonda.

2. 11 LR Copies

3. The Under Secretary, Unron of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

4. The secretary, Terangana High court Advocate's Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.

5. One CC to Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OpUC]

6. Two CD Copies VH/PSL tu,

HIGH COURT DATED: 3111212025 COMMON ORDER+ DECREE lA NO: 2 OF 2022 IN/AND MACMA.N o.16 of 2022 DISMISS!NG THE lA NO: 2 OF 2022 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.16 of 2022 o qJ 2 5 l'l[R 2[28 Dii P7i(11 1\{E STAr$ \ (r -k

l. .r,' :y tlzp-c jl

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO lA NO: 2 OF 2022 IN/AND MACMANO:16OF2022 ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 2 AND Between:

6. Smt. Karra lrilaniula, Wo. Late Agriculture R/o. Vartoor Village, Diskict,TS Sri Gummadi Uppal Reddy, S/o G. Komura Reddv, qSqq 9] vegrl 999- Agriculture R/o. Virtoor Villige, Mutakondur l\tlandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, TS

1. Singiredly tvlalla Reddy (Died per LRs), Nalgonda

2. Singi Reddy Sujatha, W/o Late S.tr/alla Reddy, aged 52 years, Occ- House Hold,

3. Singi Reddy Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Late S.lr4alla Reddy, aged 31 years, Occ- Agriculture 4, Singi Reddy lvlahrpal Reddy, S/o. Late S Malla Reddy' aged 28 years, Occ- Pvt., Job No. 2 to 4 ara R/o. Near Rice t\rlill, Vartoor Road, Mutakondur Village and lVlandal, Yadadri Bhongir Diskict,TS- 508 286

5. Karra Bhoopal Died per LRs (Respondent No 6), (Driver of the Hero Honda Passion Plus lvlotor Cycle bearing No AP-29 AF- 2341\ Karra Bhoopal, aged It/utakondur Mandal, 35 years, Occ- Yadadri Bhongir ..RESPONDENTSPETITIONER/RESPONDENT No- 1 AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofMVActagainsttheorder-andde-cree dated. i6t10t2018 in |V.V.O.P.No. 93 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the chairman lvlotor Accident claims Trrbunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, at Nalgonda- This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the appellant and none appeared for Respondents either in person or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the ltlotor Accident Civil l\rliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tnbunal shall stand confirmed in all other aspects; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in thrs appeal. SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY A IS ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman lvlotor Accident CIaims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, at Nalgonda.

2. fwo CD Copies VH/PSL tw a-.,

HIGH COURT DATED: 3111212025 DECREE MACMA.No.16 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA.N o.16 of 2022 k3, q