Judgment :- An Appeal by a dead person is no appeal in the eye of law. This is an appeal by a dead person by name M.N. Bahadur who was the claimant in MVC No.11/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (SR.Dn). and Member, MACT-VI, Kudligi. The claim petition was filed due to the death of his son M.B. Raja Hedge in a motor vehicle accident, on the premise that he had lost the support from his son. 2. The claim petition though was contested, resulted in award dated 16.06.2003 awarding compensation of Rs. 94,500/- as against a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- claimed by the claimant. 3. If submission of Smt. Y. Malati Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant is to be believed, the claimant died on 16.09.2003, for which purpose Xerox copy of the death certificate is placed before the Court, i.e., within a period of about 3 months from the date of judgment of the tribunal. 4. We find, the very appeal is in the name of a dead person. The appeal is filed before this Court, on 07.07.2006 as though the dead person is alive and claiming for enhancement of compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal urging that deceased M.B. Raja Hegde was a tailor by occupation having monthly income of Rs. 4,000/-; that the tribunal has not adopted appropriate multiplier in computing loss of dependency; that the tribunal has committed error in attributing 15% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, while it is established from evidence on record that the motor cycle was ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle ridden by the deceased M.B. Raja Hegde and is therefore contended that the entire negligence should have been attributed to the first respondent. It is therefore urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on lower side. 5. It is three years after the death of M.N. Bahadur/appellant, the Appeal was filed and if the description in the cause title is accepted, it is a case of misrepresentation that the appellant is still alive. 6. However, Smt. Y Malati Reddy, learned counsel for appellant has drawn our attention to certain notings made in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal. 6. However, Smt. Y Malati Reddy, learned counsel for appellant has drawn our attention to certain notings made in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal. It is written in hand below the name of the appellant indicating that the appellant is dead and Smt. Reddy also draws our attention to a series of applications said to have been filed along with memorandum of appeal. 7. one application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking for amendment of claim petition to be one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, instead of as a petition under Section 166 of the Act. This application is supported by an affidavit of Smt. Leela, w/o late M.N. Bahadur, aged about 50 years r/o Kotehole, kalareshwara Nagar, kalasa Post, Mudigere taluq, chikamagalur-577124 who had come down to Bangalore at the time of swearing the affidavit. The affidavit reads as under: “1. I am the appellant’s wife in the above case hence conversant with the facts deposed to hereinafter. 2. I submit that my son deceased M.B. Raja Hedge who was aged about 19 years died in an accident, which occurred on 5.5.1994. I was constrained to file MVC No. 11/2003. The tribunal by order dated 16.6.2003 was pleased to award to sum of Rs. 94,500/-. 3. I submit that claim petition was filed in a hurry. My counsel at Bellary instead of filing claim petition under Sec. 163A has filed u/Section 166. I submit that I am not conversant with the law and I was not advised properly. I only know to sing and for all particular purpose I am an illiterate woman. 4. I submit that I am advised that if the claim petition is amended from 166 to 163A, it will be beneficial to me. 5. I am advised to submit that the Full bench of this Honorable High Court reported in ILR 2001 Vol. II KAR 2879 (Guruanna Vadi Vs KSRTC) as stated that the claim petition can be amended from 166 to 163A even at the appellate stage. 6. I submit that if the claim petition is amended no injustice will be caused to the respondents, as there is no limitation prescribed for claiming the compensation, on the other hand great injustice will be caused to me if the application accompanying this affidavit is not allowed. 6. I submit that if the claim petition is amended no injustice will be caused to the respondents, as there is no limitation prescribed for claiming the compensation, on the other hand great injustice will be caused to me if the application accompanying this affidavit is not allowed. Hence, the prayer in the accompanying application.” While in para-2 of the affidavit, it is claimed that deponent was constrained to file MVC No.11/2003, we find on the other hand, MVC No.11/2003 had been filed before the Tribunal at Kudligi only by M.N. Bahadur, Son of G.H. Hedge, aged 50 years, Driver in NMDC, Donimalai, Sandur, as the sole claimant. 8. The second application is one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1037 days in preferring the appeal. This application is also supported by an affidavit of Smt. Leela, w/O late M.N. Bahadur. Strangely, in this affidavit, it is claimed that her husband had filed MVC No.11/2003. Again it is mentioned that her husband died on 16.09.2003 and due to ill health she had left Donimalai and was residing a Thirthahalli, Shimoga District, that while her husband was party before the MACT, She was not in a position to attend legal matters due to her illness. It is also claimed that she was suffering from depression and ill health due to the death of her son and husband and taking treatment at Thiruthahalli, Shimoga and in the absence of any male members in the family, she did not have sufficient finance to go to Bangalore to prosecute the appeal. The application is supported by medical certificate dated 02.01.2004 issued by one Dr. U. Arunachala, MBBS, DGO, Practitioner at Thiruthahalli, indicating that the deponent was under treatment for severe mental illness etc., 9. Yet another application is one under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC seeking to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased appellant, which reads as under: “For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, the applicants pray that this Honorable Court be pleased to permit the applicants to come on record as the only legal heirs of late M.N. Bahadur. Smt. Leela W/o late M.N. Bahadur, Aged about 50 years, R/O Kotehole, Kalaseshawaranagar, Kalasa Post, Mudigere TAluq, Chikamagalur-577124.M.B. Meena, W/o Suresh N. Rai, Aged about 33 years R/o Kotehole, Kalaseshwaranagar, Kalasa Post, Mudigere Taluq Chikamagalur-577124. Smt. Leela W/o late M.N. Bahadur, Aged about 50 years, R/O Kotehole, Kalaseshawaranagar, Kalasa Post, Mudigere TAluq, Chikamagalur-577124.M.B. Meena, W/o Suresh N. Rai, Aged about 33 years R/o Kotehole, Kalaseshwaranagar, Kalasa Post, Mudigere Taluq Chikamagalur-577124. Kumari Susheela, D/O late M.N. Bahadur Aged about 25 years, R/O Kotehole, kalaseshwaranagar, Kalasa Post, Mudigere Talup, Chikamagalur-577124.” 10. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, the deponent viz., Smt Leela once again goes back and claims that she was the claimant in MVC No.11/2003 and she was constrained to file MVC due to death of her 19 year old son in a motor vehicle accident. 11. while the number of legal representatives ought to be brought on record in place of deceased M.N. Bahadur is indicated to be three and the first applicant being the deponent herself and wife of late M.N Bahadur, the 3rd applicant kum. Susheela has been indicated as one of the legal representative of deceased M.N. Bahadur, but nothing has been stated in respect of 2nd applicant M.B. Meena, W/o Suresh N. Rai, however residing at the same place where the other two applicants reside. It is rather difficult to appreciate as to how the 2nd applicant is seeking to come on record as one of the legal representative of deceased M.N. Bahadur, in the absence of a specific assertion in the affidavit that she is also a daughter of the deceased appellant M.N. Bahadur. 12. We find that the applications are dated 04.04.2006, the same day as that of filing of memorandum of appeal. However, the memorandum of appeal itself was presented on 07.07.2006. 13. We also notice, over writing of the month mentioned on the fact sheet of the presentation form enclosed to the application for brining the LRs on record and the numerical 7’ indicating the month has been over written to make it appear as ‘4’ 14. While presentation is in such a haphazard manner, the affidavit supporting the application for bringing the LRs on record in place of deceased M.N. Bahadur reads as under: “1. Smt. Leela, W/o late M.N. Bahadur, Aged about 50 years, R/o Kotehole, Kalareshwara Nagar, Kalasa Pst, Mudigere Taluk, Chikmagalur-577124, presently at Bangalore do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and state as hereunder: 1. I am the appellant’s wife in the above case and hence conversant with the facts deposed to hereinafter. Smt. Leela, W/o late M.N. Bahadur, Aged about 50 years, R/o Kotehole, Kalareshwara Nagar, Kalasa Pst, Mudigere Taluk, Chikmagalur-577124, presently at Bangalore do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and state as hereunder: 1. I am the appellant’s wife in the above case and hence conversant with the facts deposed to hereinafter. 2.I submit that my son deceased M.B. Raja Hedge who was aged about 19 years died in an accident, which occurred on 5.5.1994. I was constrained to file MVC No. 11/2003. The tribunal by order dated 16.06.2003 was pleased to award a sum of Rs. 94,500/-Aggrieved by which the present appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation. 3. I submit that my husband died on 16.9.2003 leaving behind the proposed applicants as his legal heirs. 4. I submit that I was not aware that LR application has to be filed on the death of my husband. I was under the impression that enhanced compensation amount would ensure to the benefit of myself and my children. 5. I submit that because of the aforesaid bonafide reasons I could not inform my advocate. It is only when the postal authorities informed through share that appellant is dead, my advocate requested me to send the details regarding LRs of appellant. Immediately, I have sent the detail to my counsel, who has filed the present application. I submit that no injustice will be caused to the respondent if the application is allowed on the contrary great injustice will be caused to me. Hence, the prayer in the accompanying application.” 15. We notice from the affidavit that para 5 of the affidavit makes rather strange reading with the explanation that the deponent could not inform her advocate the fact of death of her husband and it is only when the postal authorities informed through shara that appellant is dead and the advocate for deponent requested her to send the details regarding legal representative of deceased appellant and thereafter the deponent had sent the details to the advocate who has filed the instant appeal purported to be annexed with aforestated application. 16. These irregularities which are nothing short of intentionally making false statements in the affidavits duly sworn and solemnly affirmed by the deponent exposing the deponent to criminal prosecution apart, also renders the counsel who had prepared all these applications and affidavits as an abettor! 16. These irregularities which are nothing short of intentionally making false statements in the affidavits duly sworn and solemnly affirmed by the deponent exposing the deponent to criminal prosecution apart, also renders the counsel who had prepared all these applications and affidavits as an abettor! We also notice the signature of deponent found in the vakalath reading as ‘Leela’ in Kannada language rather suspicious and in this state of affairs, it cannot be either assumed or presumed that there is any element of truth in the versions as indicated in the three affidavits sworn to by the same person Smt. Leela. 17. We notice from the presentation form and the appeal memorandum the above stated applications and affidavits were not presented along with appeal memoprandum, Smt. Y.Malati Reddy, learned counsel for appellant none the less very vehemently submits that such applications were filed along with the appeal memorandum. 18. The matter is listed before the Court on the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking for referring the matter to Lok Adalath and also for orders on Misc. Cvl. No. 100231/2009 for permission to produce some additional documents and with a further memo for deletion of R-4 and R-5, etc. 19. We would normally accept the request for referring the matter to the Lok Adalath, but when we requested the learned counsel for the respondents to indicate the terms of settlement so that this appeal can be disposed here itself, Sri. A.G. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 submits that there is no proposal for settlement as of now and that the proposal should originate from the appellant’s side and if they are not indicating any proposal, there is nothing for the 3rd respondent to say. 20. it is because of lack of comity between the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent Insurance Company about the terms of settlement, we had to look into the appeal papers and the record and we have stumbled across all sorts of irregularities, misconduct on the part of the learned counsel who has presented the appeal and filed affidavits wherein the deponent has made false statements which are duly sworn to and solemnly affirmed by the widow of the appellants on record. 21. We find the record bristling with irregularities and full of false and thoroughly misleading statement of facts, which are duly sworn and verified. 21. We find the record bristling with irregularities and full of false and thoroughly misleading statement of facts, which are duly sworn and verified. It is a very depress scenario and a very sorry state of affairs that a noble profession like the legal profession has degenerated to such a level. 22. We are of the view, this is because of the easy ways, found by some members of the legal profession who earn their livelihood from matters such as motor vehicles accident claims where there is either loss of life or bodily injuries to victims which is sought to be compensated. It is our experience, that in such matters some of the members of the legal profession find it rather easy to earn money by resorting to fraudulent methods at the cost of the litigants to enrich themselves. 23. This is a very unfortunate development, which has made us to sit up and look at this matter with a little seriousness and scrutinize the matters with some degree of probity. 24. We are indeed very doubtful as to whether the instant appeal is a genuine Appeal under Section 173 of the Act by bonafide litigants, prosecuting the appeal for justification and bonafide relief. 25. the fact that only one parent had filed the claim petition in itself is a strange development in a case where both parents should have been the claimants. The further fact that the appeal is filed in the name of the original claimant after the death of the original claimant, and so many other applications are filed accompanied by affidavits containing palpably false averments, either due to gross negligence or may be deliberately on the part of the counsel who has prepared and presented the appeal and so also the above stated applications and affidavits. 26. The appeal does not take off in the name of a dead person, therefore subsequent applications are of no consequence. The appeal is not tenable, applications are of no consequence. The appeal is not tenable, applications are bereft of bonafides without any rhyme or reason, therefore appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal and Misc. Cvl. No.100231/2009 are dismissed. 27. However, in matters of this nature, because of incompetence or lack of bonafides on the part of the counsel, the interest of the litigants suffers. The appeal is not tenable, applications are bereft of bonafides without any rhyme or reason, therefore appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal and Misc. Cvl. No.100231/2009 are dismissed. 27. However, in matters of this nature, because of incompetence or lack of bonafides on the part of the counsel, the interest of the litigants suffers. We cannot over look such things happenings before the Court and we have strongly felt so in the present case and it is the counsel who has misrepresented the facts in the case and has mislead the Court. The very description of the appellant in the case title is proof of this fact. We are also not sure of the bonafides of the persons who have preferred this appeal as also the applications and as to who exactly are prosecuting this appeal. 28. Even the inter se relationship of deceased with appellant and applicants as per the names indicated in the applications makes us doubt as to the genuineness of the claim. 29 The accident is said to have taken place on 05.05.1994 on Narasapura Road, when the deceased M.B.Raja Hedge causing the accident resulting in his death at the spot. 30. The name of the original claimant/appellant is M.N Bahadur and his father’s name is G.H. Hegde. The original claimant was a driver in NMDC, Sandur. The son of original claimant Mr. M.N. Bahadur is described as Raja Hedge but not as a Bahadur. The death certificate of M.N. Bahadur is issued by the Issuing Authority, office of Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, Mavinakere Village, Mudigere Taluq, Chikmagalur, indicating the place of death as KPM Hospital, Kalasa. 31. This makes us doubt even about the bonafides of the learned counsel who had conducted the case before the tribunal and was instrumental in prosecuting the appeal before this court. 32. These are all matters which are required to be investigated further and commensurate action has to be taken against erring persons. 33. Therefore, we refer this matter to the Karnataka State Bar Council, who perhaps can conduct a proper enquiry, look into the matter and initiate commensurate action, if they find any mischief on the part of the learned counsel for the claimant before the tribunal and also if any on the part of learned counsel who has presented this Appeal before the High Court. In the wake of this order, memo for referring the matter to Lok Adalath does not survive and is rejected. 34. We feel that matters of this nature are sought to be referred to Lok Adalath only to avoid scrutiny by the Courts. While an expeditious disposal of the case and quick remedy to a client is a welcome step, still in a system governed by rule of law, any relief and any compensation that can be given to any claimant or appellant can only be in accordance with law and not by passing law and statutory requirements. 35. In our opinion, in the name of providing an expeditious remedy, courts cannot permit rule of law to be trampled and professional values being sacrificed at the cost of litigants and such tendencies, particularly in cases arising under Motor Vehicles Act and Land Acquisition Act makes us feel that it is high time for the Karnataka State Bar Counsel to look into such things in the proper perspective and take corrective action whenever necessary. 36. It is necessary to take strict action against such members of the Bar and bring discipline amongst the members of the Bar so that the reputation and the good name of legal profession as a noble of legal profession as a noble profession is retained and at the same time, litigants are not taken for a ride by lawyers to achieve unrighteous enrichment by resorting to unscrupulous methods. 37. The Additional Registrar General at this Circuit Bench is directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the Karnataka State Bar Council, Bangalore, for taking follow up action at their level. 38. Copy of this Judgment shall also be sent to Karnataka State Law Commission and to the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka for taking commensurate steps, not only to protect the interest of the litigants but also to ensure that rule of law prevails and judicial system is not high jacked by undeserving persons and purpose of law and courts are not abused or misused to achieve results not permitted by law.