IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD, DATED THIS THE 06JH DAY OF JANUARY 2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AN. VENUGOPALA GOWDA Misc CvL No. 105384’2010 in 22321 2010 and Misc. Cvi.No.105385/2010 in MFANo,22JO1,(MV BETWEEN: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd,. Divisional Manager, Edigar Hostel Complex, Opp. Old KSRTC Bus Stand, Double Road, Be1lar, Policy issuing Branch: Hospet, By its Regional Office, No,2B, Unity Building Annexe 0 r ‘-ga Ro ?c ‘Miss c L BangaloreE60 027, Rex B Qg Appe ant (Corrunon) •(13v Sri. Ravi 0. Sabbahit, Adv,l / AND: Anuradha, W/o late Veerana Chindi, Age: 36 years. 0cc: Household, R/o Patel Nagar, Kasiyu. Hospet, Tq: Hospet, Dist: Bellarv, 2. Smt, Susheela, W/o Channappa Chindi, Age: 63 years, 0cc: Nil, R/o Guledagudda, Tq: Badami, Dist: Bagalkote. 3. Channappa. Sb Mallikarjunappa Chindi, Age: 67 years, 0cc: Nil, R/o Guledagudda, Tq: Badami, Dist: Bagalkote. 4. Neeraj, S/o Late Veranna Chindi, Age: 14 years, 0cc: Student, R/o Patel Nagar, Kosiyu, Hospet. Tq: Hospet. Dist: Bellary. 5. Manzur, Sb Jeelansab Doni, Age: 37 years, 0cc: Business, .And owner of Lorry bearing No. KA i5/A2967, R/o Sajjeh.oia Street, Tq: K.oppai, Dist: .Koppal. Respondents (Common) (By Sri, Chan.drashekhar P. Patil, Adv. for R-i to 3: R4 minor, R-5 served) Misc. Cvl.No, 105384/2010 is filed unde.r Section 5 of ng e don cea of 97 cav i pref@rri.nc the Appeal. 44 S 3 This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the M.V.Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 21.08.2009 passed in MVC No. 453/2008 on the file of Fast Track Court No.1 and Addi. MACT, Koppal, awarding compensation of Rs. 18,06,030/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the petition till deposit. Misc. Cvl.No. 105385/20 10 is filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC praying to stay the operation and execution of the Judgment and Award dated 21.08.2009 passed in MVC No. 453/2008 on the file of Fast Track Court No.1 and Addl. MACr, Koppal. This appeal coming on for orders this day, N.K.Patil J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT Misc. Cvl.No.105384/2010 is filed by appellant praying to condone the delay of 197 days in filing the appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3. Respondent No. 5 is served and unrepresented. 3. Delay of 197 days in filing the appeal has been explained in the accompanying affidavit dated 29.06.20 10 stating that the copy of the judgment and award was applied on 22.08.2009 and the same was secured on 31.08.2009 and 4 after perusal of the judgment and award, copy was forwarded to the Divisional Office, Bellary, and the Divisional office forwarded the same to Regional Office. Later on, papers were placed before the competent authority and the authority took decision to prefer appeal and thereafter papers were entrusted to the counsel to file the instant appeal. The said delay is due to bonafide circumstances, beyond control and unintentional, but not deliberate. Hence, delay may be condoned and matter may be heard on merits. The said explanation offered in para-3 of the affidavit cannot be given any credibility for the reason that inordinate delay of 197 days is not explained satisfactorily, as to on what date the counsel received the copy of the judgment and award and forwarded to the divisional office and the date on which the papers were scrutinized and decided to prefer the appeal is not coming forth. The reasons stated cannot be accepted. Hence, Misc. Cvl. is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Accordingly, Misc. Cvl. No. 105384/2010 is dismissed. / 4. Further on merits also we have heard the learned counsel for appellant and claimants 1 to 3 Sn Chandrashekar P PattI, learned counsel for claimants submit that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and further submit that appellant/Insurer has not filed application under Section 170 questioning the quantum of compensation to contest the petition Instant appeal has been filed disputing the assessment of compensation and the liability of the appellant to pay compensations The quantum of compensation is not disputed by the Insurer and hence the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable Accordingly, it is dismissed both on th€ ground of dela at d iitches ‘s also on ments The tnou t i depos saall cc tra srnitteo. ne r d t C ItO C t 6 Office to draw the award accordingly. Sale. JUDGE sal 3UDG! mkc