Bengaluru: Over 20 years after a motor accident claim was decided, the Karnataka high court has dismissed an appeal seeking enhanced compensation, refusing to condone a delay of 7,354 days in filing the plea.Prakash Malage, a resident of Saundatti in Belgavi district, died in a road accident in 2004. On Feb 10, 2006, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Bailhongal awarded Rs 4.5 lakh as compensation to his family.It was only in 2026 — two decades later — that Umabai, the deceased’s wife, along with their 29-year-old daughter, approached high court seeking enhancement of the compensation. They also sought condonation of the 7,354-day delay in filing the appeal.Umabai contended that she was in deep mental shock after her husband’s death and was unaware that she could challenge the tribunal’s award. She said a relative informed her in Jan 2020 that the compensation was inadequate and advised her to consult a lawyer. However, Covid-19 pandemic and financial constraints delayed her from doing so. She said she met an advocate in June 2022, obtained a fresh certified copy of the award in Dec 2023, and was subsequently hospitalised for thyroid treatment, which further delayed the filing of the appeal. The appeal was eventually filed in 2026.The court, however, noted that the couple’s daughter, who was also an appellant, had offered no explanation for the delay.It was also argued that since Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, the delay in filing of the appeal should be condoned. The court was told that in two such cases, the high court itself had condoned delay of 4,405 and 3,253 days.However, Justice KB Geetha noted in her July 3 order that appellants have not produced any material to establish that they were prevented from sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.The judge said the daughter of the deceased, the 2nd appellant, had attained majority more than 10 years ago and is not an uneducated person. As regards to the thyroid problem, the judge pointed out that no medical records were placed to support the claim.“These facts disentitle the appellants from filing the appeal 20 years after the judgment. Issuing notice to the respondents would only consume the court’s time unnecessarily. The reasons assigned in the affidavit for condoning the delay of 7,354 days are unacceptable. The appellants have not been diligent in prosecuting the appeal,” the judge observed.
