The High Court · 2025

1. Sri Anjayya Hanumayya Koyadwar, S/o. Hanumayya Koyadwar, Ownei 6f Jeep bearing No. MH-31/AH-9354, Plot No.14, Teka Naka, KamPtee Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra.

2. National lnsurance Company Ltd., through it's Branch, Manager, Jatpura Gate, Chandrapur, rep. by its Branch Manager, B.' Laimiraj Complex, Jawahar Road, Nizamabad. lA NO: '1 OF 2024 ..ResPondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 2361 days in filing the LR Petition to bring the Petitioners 2 & 3 on record in the above MACMA No. 3460 of 2008. Between: (Died) ' 8:iflil 4li,?.,xl,.:,i J8*"iah ' ilif i'$iidtiffir"",?,:11:il:;:il::::' ' 8i:q'F:#?Tii b:f .l-f, lHf "sikar Han u ma nthu, f,i;##r,;t"l#ilypaily viliase, Korasiri Mandat, AND 'ixffl"fliis-:"fi ...AppellanUpetitioners :ril[#t:H:r.:]f!1""vv'Kovadwar, 2 ll:lig!S,.J,"._rrance Company Ltd., mrough its Branch, Man,ager, j^a]pyra..G gle, Cha ndra pu r, Lq Iy lt" Branch Maniser, ::_LaxTira.l Complex, Jaiva'har Road, Nrzamabad_ IAN :2O F2 024 ... Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section .151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to set aside the abatement in the above MACMA No. 3460 of 2008. N 3 F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased lo permit the petitioners 2 & 3 on record as LR,s of petitioner No. 1 in the above MACMA No. 3460 of 2008. For the Appellant : Sri. S.Surender Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: Sri p. Bhanu prakash, The Court made the foltowing: COMMON JUDGMENT Advocate HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA I.A. No.1 of2O24 IN AND MACMA No. 3460 of 2OO8 coMMON JUDGMENT: The Appeal, MACMA No'346O of 2OO8 has been f-rled bv Sangam Maraiah/claimant challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 31'O1 2OO8 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad' in O.P'No'742 of 2OO4 '

2. By the impugned Judgment and Decree the Tribunal partly-allowed the petition by awarding a compe nsation of Rs.4,55,143/- , witk- 7 '5o/o interest per annum' holding the owner of offending Jeep (MH-3 1/AH-9354) as well as the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation Dissatished with the quantum of compensa[ion' the claimant filed this APPeal'

3. This Appeal is of the year 2OO8' We are in )'O25 ' Norv' a[ this juncture, an 'Application I A'No'3 of 2024 is hled bv the proposed petitioners No'2 and 3' seeking to come on record as legal representatives of the claimant/ appellant' It is statcd by the APPlication that the the ProPosed Petitioners claimant/appellant expired on O3'09'2017 and they were not 1n t. :' E 2 aware of the pending Appeal before this Court and therelore could not file LR petition within time. Further I.A.No.2 of 2024 is filed to set aside the abatement of Appeal caused on account of the dea[h of claimant/appellant. Further as there is a delay of 2361 days in filing the Applications i.e., I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024, the petitioners hled I.A.No .l of 2024 seeking to condone the delay.

4. Heard Sri Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the proposed petitioners/applicants; and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-lnsurance company. perused the record.

5. Learned Standing Counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Estate Officer, Haryana llrban Deaelopment Authoritg a. Gopi Chand. Atrejat, and contends that the counsel responsible for pursuing the proceedings before the court is cxpected to represent and assist the court. It is further submitted that the parties are also expected to diligently follow up with their counsel regarding the progress of their case. However, in instant case, the proposed petitioners/appellants as well as their counsel have not at all brought it to the notice of this Court about the expiry of Mr Sangam Maraiah (claimant/appellant) way back in the vear ' AIR 20 t9 sc l42l 3 qr.Nc n" H&d')oo3 2Ol7 i.e., almost 8 Years ago It is also contended that under Section 5 of Limitation Act' each day delaY has to be satisfactorily explained' but in the instant case' there is a huge and inordinate delay of 8 years from the date of expiry of the claimant (Mr' Sangam Maraiah)' and the petilioners herein t stating that [hey are unaware of the legal consequences that they approached their counsel and furnished the Death Certilrcate of [he claimant ot 23 'O7 2024 ' there ts no satisfactory explanation for the cause of delay' Moreover' the counsel too has apparently not tried to contact his client (Mr' Sangam Maraiah) or his family mernbers' during all thcse years' as if any such communication had happened' it could have revealed whether the claimant was alive or not' Learned Standing Counsel therefore contends that in view o[ there being no sufficient grounds to condone the inordinate delay of 2361 days, the condone delay application is liable to be dismissed' 6. Considering the respective submissions' it may be noted that the appeal automatically abates upon the death of the legal representatives come on record appellant, unless the of deray, if any, within permissible time' with proper explanatron in frling the legal representative petition' Whereas in the instant case, the claimant/ apperlant (Mr.Sangam Maraiah) expired way { I 4 tA No I of202r u back in the year 2017 (i.e., O3.OT.2O1Z), and the reasons pur forth by the proposed petitioners in I.A.No. I of 2024 that they were not aware of the legal consequences of the delay and that they approached their counsel on 23.07.2024 (i.e., after 7 years of the death of the claimant) are not sufficient to condone the delay of 8 years for setting aside the abatement of appeal caused on account of the death of the claimant.

7. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed as abated. The condone delay petition i.e., I.A.No. I of 2024 rs dismissed. Consequently, the I.A.No.2 of 2024 (set aside of abatement), and I'A'No.3 of 2024 (Legal Representative petition) also stanrJ dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD OEPUTY REGI?TRAR secrr{M*rrcen To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad ?. 9n" CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, AdVocate fOpUti' ' 3. Qne CC to Sri P. Bhanu prakash,'Advocate lCiFUCl 4. Two CD Copies KNK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:03/07t2025 11 SEP 206 I ,r o tsp,r, rc'\ COMMON JUDGMENT l.A. No. 1 of 2024 MACMA.No.3460 of 2008 APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED, NO COSTS & 3(