1. Pulinti Shoba v. 1. Kallepalli Ravi

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying th: t in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of tl.re petition, th: High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 15'l 3 days in preferring the : rbove appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI D.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N.SRINATH RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nosl and 2: None Appeared The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.No.2 of 2025 in/and M.A.C .M.A.No.406 of 2025 COMMO N JUDGNIENT: Heard Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy' learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners/claim petirioners and Sri N. Srinath Rao, leamed counsel for respondent No.3. The parlies are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the apPeal.

2. ln the present appeal, the appellants filed I.A.No'2 of 2025 seeking to condone delay of 1513 days in fiting the present appeal, on the grounds that they were suffering from mental sickness and health issues due to death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. In that regard, the appellants/claim petitioners filed M.v.o.P.No.576 of 2018 on the file of the chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, seeking compensation of Rs'25,00,000/- and in the said claim petition compensation of Rs.7,10,400/- has been awarded. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal was prefened, but with a delay on account of mental trauma suffered by the appellants'

3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 is social welfare tegislation and therefore, lenient view has to be taken in condoning delay as compared to rest of the civil litigations. It is \ ^\ /t/ !-ItI\ =EBH \ *q".'+18# ,ir. -,rrr,,i! .j* \:, RY.J IA 2_2025 in/and \,IACI\4A 406 2025 also contended that the appellants are willing ro forego interest tbr the period of delay if they be permitted to prefer the appeal.

4. I-earned counsel for respondent No.3 filed corlrl rr. to I.A.No.2 of 2025 alleging rhar sufficient reason is not cited for con loning inordinate delay of l5l3 days caused in filing the appeal. Further. ir is argued rhat the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.7, 10,400/- a,d r re err ire alnount has bce, deposited. on account of compliance with th: irw arcr passed by the 'f.ibunal, at this.juncture respondent No.3 cannot l.refer appeal and thercfb.e, prcjudice would be caused in case delay is c rnd.ned and the present appeal is pennitted to be registered.

5. -[he appellants could have banked upon the reasor rf nrerrtal tr.aurna in case therc was inordinate delay in filing the main cla rn perition after occurrence of the accident, but the appellants u,ere lr rvine clarity of thought to llle the clairn petition after death ol' the d,rt cascd i.e., after accident and ha'e pursued the claim petition from it. irrstitution till disposal. At the stage of appeal, the reason of menra tr.aurra seems unreasonable and created for the purpose of overcoming irrr rdinare delay of 15 13 days. 'Ihere is no documentary evidence plac _,,1 on record to demonstrate that rnental sickness/mental trauma has carrs rd anv kind of .\/ \2 t I -:'.. "7 hospitalization or any other difficulty which caused the delay in filing the RY.J IA 2 202-s in/and MACMA 406 2025 appeal.

6. Though, the Motor Vehicles Act, 198tt is social welfare legislation' the same cannot be permitted to be abused. [t appears that this appeal is preferred as an aftenhought after inordinate delay ol I5l3 days when there is no prool whatsoevel' that the mental sickness and trauma have caused the delay.

7. Couring to the aspect of fbrgoing intcrest, even if the appellants are rvilling to lbrego the interest for.the detay period serious pre.iudice witl be caused to respondent No.3/insurance company as the appeal is preferred with such a delay after the award passed by the Tribunal is already con.rplied rvith.

8. In the circumstances stated above, l.A.No.2 of 2025 fited to condone detay of I5l3 days in filing the appeal lacks merits and the sarne is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the M.A.C.M.A.No.406 of 2025 stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed' No order as to costs . OSMAN ALI BAIG SD/. ASSI TANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, 1 The Court of the Chairperson Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Sessions Judge Karimnagar

2. One CC to Sri D Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N.Srinath Rao, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies NVB/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 I. l: t,l a i f COMMON JUDGMENT+DEGREE lA.No.2 ot 2025 ln/And MACMA.No.406 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE MACMA AND l.A.No.1t-OF 2025 ,I ..C 6 5-- 134421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE T\WENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AI{D TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLA NEOUS APPEAL NO: 406 OF 2O2s Between: I Pulinti Shoba, W/o Vasanth Aged atrout 41 years, H.No 4-69123/2't, TheegataguttJpaili Viflage. Ar"piiri Kanmnagar Rural and Mandal, Karimnagar District. Pu.linti V-asanth, S/o Yellaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Daily Labour, R/o l !"_1 9:!?!?1-, Thee.gatasynaipaili viflag_e Arepaili n.ren,1"- V-,rraiL'oi Kaflmnagar Rural and Mandal, Karrmnagar District.' P-ulinti Srilatha, D/o Vasanth, Aged about 20 years, Occ. Student, R/o H.No.4_ f"im""!r, 69123.121 ,.Theegataguttapaili Viilage Arepaili nevenue VittagJ Rural and Mandal, Karimnagar Dislrict. Occ. Household. R/o Revenue Village of ' "i 2 J AND ...Appellant 1 2 3 Kallepalli Ravi, Yg BqQr, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Driver of Renautt KWtD 9.ar bearing No.TS 02 EX 5463 R/o.Venk'atayapafli Viilage, Cangaahira- - Mandal, Karimnagar District. Kalvala Sagar, S]g Rgjgsham, Aged Major , Occ. Owner of Renautt KWID ca.r bearing No.TS 02 EX 5463. .R/o H No 2-56t1t21 , Theegalaguttapalii - Village, Karimnagar Rural and Mandal, Karimnagar Oistrrctl Royal Sundaram General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch ltilanager, Office. H.No.8-3-600, 1st Ftoor,'Kofhiramprr, ffyb.ijUiO norO, Karimnagar. (Vide police No.VPC0955665000.1 O0 vatid tiil 26-02-20 19). ... RespondenURespondents Appeal filed Under section '173 of Motor Vehicres Act, 1 98g against the order and decree in M.V.o.P.No.576 oF 2018 dated. ogt11l2o2o on theiile of the court of the chairperson Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-principal sessions Judge Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for_hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court berow and the matirial papers in the t l i t:. '{ MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and of sri t,l srinitn Rro R,luocate Respordent.No.3 and none appeared for respondent Nos..l and 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1- That the MACtvA be and hereby is dismissed confi, rinq ,re impugned order and decree passed by the Tribunal. 2 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal sD/- r14. OSM 4$gl:g l-ANT AN ALI BAIG REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \'\ SBCTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The court. of the chairperson Motor Accident craims Trit unar-cum-principar Sessions Judge Karimnaoar. Two CD Copies NVB HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 -a')-.' i,'.;' ,t | --) Ial i' ,; i:, 47 [ii .'iit'r '..-. '-)'/:,- .\... .. DECREE MACMA.No.406 of 2025 DISMISSING THE MACtclA AND l.A.No.il OF 2025 Jr -t1 e{' \\1-,r (t's