FAO-15871 IN THE HIG 109 Birmati and Balbir Singh CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-28428 1. Limitation A delay of ex accompanyin 2. that in respe 15/16.03.19 appellants h dated 14.09 Ambala; and 18.02.1999 before this C claimants, as fide belief 871-2018 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ti and another Versus Singh and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Ms. Kiran Bala Jain and Mr. Kt for the appellants. I GUPTA, J. 8428-CII-2018 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963 read with Section 15 extraordinary and inordinate del panying appeal. It is submitted by learned couns respect of the accident that took pla 03.1995, 05 claim petitions includin s herein were filed; all of which 14.09.1996 by the learned Motor and all the petitions were decided 1999. It is contended that thereafter, s this Court i.e. by the respondent-Ins , as well. It is submitted that the ap that their appeal had also been fil D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-15871-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 .…Appellants ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA r. Ktritin Jain, Advocates on filed under Section 5 of the 151 CPC is for condonation of te delay 7014 days in filing the counsel for the applicant-appellants ok place in the intervening night of ncluding the petition filed by the hich were consolidated vide order Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, cided by one common Award dated fter, several first appeals were filed Insurance Company; and by the the appellants were under the bona een filed before this Court; but later the n of the ants t of the rder nal, ated filed the na later RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-15871 on they came Court. It is account of th 3. widow at a was illiterate already been present appl present appe 4. 5. application condonation the accomp applicant-ap years, the Ho of lackadaisi the rights of of every liti duty of this This is the v applicants cl filed on the diligent in p party, losing to the rights 871-2018 (O&M) -2- y came to know that no appeal is pend It is submitted that therefore, the p nt of the above misapprehension of the Further, it is submitted that app at a very young age with a child be literate and was under bona fide belief y been filed before this Court. Acco t application may be allowed and del t appeal, be condoned. Heard. The reasons given by the ation do not constitute a cogent o nation of extraordinary and inordinate ccompanying appeal. The cryptic ex appellants does not constitute Hon’ble Supreme Court has come adaisical litigants. It is to be apprecia hts of the parties get crystallised. It is ry litigant to pursue his case diligen f this Court to ensure that justice inu s the very purpose of the law of limit ants clearly, harboured their misappre n their behalf, for years together. in pursuing their case. Delay in pu losing his/her right to pursue the app rights of the other party. Reference in s pending on their behalf before this the present delay has occurred on of the applicant/appellants. at applicant/appellant No. 1 became ild below 05 years of age; and she belief that appeal on her behalf had Accordingly, it is prayed that the nd delay of 7014 days in filing the the applicant-appellants in the gent or plausible explanation for rdinate delay of 7014 days in filing explanation furnished by the titute ‘sufficient cause’. In recent come down heavily on the malaise preciated that over a period of time d. It is, therefore, the bounden duty iligently; as it is also the bounden ce inures to both parties concerned. f limitation. In the present case, the sapprehension that appeal had been her. Applicants were therefore not in pursuing a remedy leads to the e appeal. Besides being prejudicial nce in this regard is made to a recent this on ame she had the the the for iling the cent laise time duty den ned. , the een not the icial cent RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-15871 judgment of Byramji Jee 871-2018 (O&M) -3- ent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jeejeebhoy (SC) : Law Finder Do “25. It hardly matters whethe or a State or Union of India the gross delay of more tha chooses to approach the cour time prescribed under the rel then he cannot turn around would be caused to either condoned. This litigation b sometime in 1981. We are in elapsed. However, till date t able to reap the fruits of his d of justice if we condone the days and once again ask the rigmarole of the legal proceed 26. The length of the delay is court must take into consi whether the delay should be tenor of the approach of the they want to fix their own instituting the proceedings for period of limitation. Once it his right to have the matter c of his own inaction for a lon be non-deliberate delay and i case, he cannot be heard to justice deserves to be preferr considerations. While cons condonation of delay, the co merits of the main matter. Th ascertain the bona fides of th party seeking condonation. It in Union of India v. Jahangir er Doc Id # 2537649, as under:- ether a litigant is a private party dia when it comes to condoning e than 12 years. If the litigant court long after the lapse of the e relevant provisions of the law, ound and say that no prejudice ither side by the delay being n between the parties started e in 2024. Almost 43 years have te the respondent has not been is decree. It would be a mockery the delay of 12 years and 158 k the respondent to undergo the ceedings. ay is a relevant matter which the onsideration while considering be condoned or not. From the f the appellants, it appears that own period of limitation for s for which law has prescribed a e it is held that a party has lost ter considered on merits because long, it cannot be presumed to nd in such circumstances of the rd to plead that the substantial eferred as against the technical considering the plea for e court must not start with the r. The court owes a duty to first of the explanation offered by the . It is only if the sufficient cause RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-15871 6. others vs. 2542600, the th ev 871-2018 (O&M) -4- assigned by the litigant and side is equally balanced that the merits of the matter for th delay. 27. We are of the view that not merely a technical co limitation are based on the policy and principles of equi `Sword of Damocles' hang respondent for indefinite peri at the whims and fancies of th XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 35. In a plethora of decision said that delay should not b generosity. Rendering substa prejudice to the opposite part to prove that they were reaso the matter and this vital test fo satisfied in this case.” Again, in Pathapati Subba R The Special Deputy Collector ( the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rec “26. On a harmonious consi the law, as aforesaid, and the law evident that: (i)Law of limitation is based should be an end to litigati remedy rather than the right i (ii) A right or the remedy th availed of for a long time mu exist after a fixed period of tim and the opposition of the other that the court may bring into aid or the purpose of condoning the that the question of limitation is l consideration. The rules of the principles of sound public equity. We should not keep the anging over the head of the period of time to be determined of the appellants isions of this Court, it has been ot be excused as a matter of bstantial justice is not to cause party. The appellants have failed easonably diligent in prosecuting est for condoning the delay is not (Emphasis added) ba Reddy (Died) by LRs and ector (LA), Law Finder Doc Id # has recently held as under: - onsideration of the provisions of e law laid down by this Court, it is sed upon public policy that there igation by forfeiting the right to ght itself; y that has not been exercised or must come to an end or cease to f time; and Id # of is re to or to RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-15871 7. explained. In the Hon’ble Shivamma ( 2025 INSC 2777666, w 871-2018 (O&M) -5- (iii) The provisions of the construed differently, such as in a strict sense whereas liberally; (iv In order to advance subs approach, justice-oriented app justice may be kept in mind defeat the substantial law Section 3 of the Limitation Ac (v) Courts are empowered to e the delay if sufficient cause exercise of power is discretion exercised even if sufficient ca factors such as, where there i and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obt it does not mean that others benefit if the court is not satis the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are no condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation app the parameters laid down condoning the delay for the re been imposed, tantamounts provision.” It is cardinal principle of law th ned. In this regard, reference may be n’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appea mma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.202 wherein it is held that each day’s the Limitation Act have to be h as Section 3 has to be construed as Section 5 has to be construed substantial justice, though liberal d approach or cause of substantial but the same cannot be used to law of limitation contained in n Act; to exercise discretion to condone use had been explained, but that etionary in nature and may not be t cause is established for various ere is inordinate delay, negligence obtained relief in similar matter, ers are also entitled to the same satisfied with the cause shown for eal; e not required to be considered in application has to be decided on for condoning the delay and he reason that the conditions have to disregarding the statutory (Emphasis added) law that delay of each day has to be ay be made to a recent judgment of ppeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as ataka Housing Board and others, 09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # s delay has to be explained in a be ed ed ral ial to in ne at be us ce er, me or in on nd ve ry o be t of d as ers, d # in a RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-15871 mathematica No cogent r applicant for filing the a inordinate d obsolete/redu 8. by the Hon’ no cogent o appellants fo of 7014 days 9. FAO-15871 1. enhancemen learned Mot Tribunal) vid 74 dated 03. 1988. The Singh who w 2. basis of pl deceased-Ra motor vehic 15/16.03.199 registration 871-2018 (O&M) -6- matical manner which has not been do gent reason or plausible explanation ant for condonation of such an inordin the accompanying appeal. Moreov nate delay would tantamount to dec te/redundant, without any justification I am in complete agreement w Hon’ble Apex Court. In the present gent or plausible explanation has b for condonation of aforesaid inord 4 days in filing the accompanying app Accordingly, the present applica 15871-2018 The appellant-claimants have fi ent of the compensation amount o d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, al) vide impugned Award dated 18.0 03.08.1995 filed under Section 16 The 02 claimants are the mother and who was aged around 22 years at the t Brief facts of the case are that f pleadings and evidence adduce Rajinder Singh, had died due to i vehicular accident that took place 03.1995 due to rash and negligen ation No. PIR-7255 (hereinafter ‘ een done by the applicant-appellant. ation has been furnished by the inordinate and unexplained delay in oreover, condonation of such an to declaring the law of limitation ication. ent with the above view expressed resent case, as already noted above, has been given by the applicant/ d inordinate and extraordinary delay ng appeal. application stands dismissed. ave filed the present appeal seeking ount of ₹1,98,000/- awarded by the nal, Ambala (for short-‘the learned 18.02.1999, passed in MACT No. ion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, er and brother of deceased-Rajinder at the time of accident. re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that ue to injuries, suffered by him in a place in the intervening night of gligent driving of Truck bearing fter ‘the offending vehicle’) by lant. the y in an tion ssed ove, elay king the rned No. Act, nder the that in a t of ring by RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-15871 respondent Singh; and in awarded com from the da respondents compensatio 3. compensatio on the lower the accident ₹3000/- per have been ap 16. Moreove but the learn future prospe compensatio loss of love a may be allo amount of co 4. have heard l merit in the claimants. 5. that the Trib as the appell 871-2018 (O&M) -7- dent No.1-Balbir Singh; owned by ; and insured by respondent No. 3-Insu ed compensation as above along with the date of filing the claim petitio dents were held jointly and se nsation. Learned counsel for the appe nsation by submitting that income of lower side as only ₹2000/- per month cident, the deceased was working a per month. It is further submitted t een applied; whereas the learned Trib oreover, the appellants had spent mor e learned Tribunal had awarded only prospects @ 40%are liable to have be nsation. Nothing has been awarded by f love and affection. Accordingly, it is e allowed; and the Award dated 18.0 t of compensation be enhanced. No other argument is raised o eard learned counsel and perused the in the arguments advanced by learne It is the first contention of learn Tribunal had taken the income of th appellants have duly proved on record ed by respondent No. 2-Saudagar Insurance Company. Ld. Tribunal g with interest @ 12% per annum petition till actual realization. All d severally liable to pay the appellants seeks enhancement of me of the deceased has been taken month. It is submitted that prior to king as a Driver and was earning itted that multiplier of 18 ought to d Tribunal had applied multiplier of nt more ₹15000/- on transportation, only an amount of ₹6000/-. Even ave been added while computing the by the learned Tribunal towards y, it is prayed that the present appeal ed 18.02.1999 be modified and the ised on behalf of the appellants. I sed the case file in detail. I find no learned counsel for the appellant- f learned counsel for the appellants e of the deceased on the lower side, record that deceased was a driver of agar unal num All t of ken r to ning to r of tion, ven the ards peal the I d no ants side, er of RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-15871 a Taxi and e said content except for t whatsoever h or income o income of th month. 6. had assumed within 2 to of the claim dependency keeping in v and 12 year Tribunal had 16). 7. amount has and Funeral granted on th had stated transportatio learned Trib 8. conformity been shown 871-2018 (O&M) -8- i and earning ₹3000/- per month. How ontention of the appellants as perus t for the bald statement of appellant oever had been adduced on record to p ome of the deceased. In this situation, of the deceased as assessed by the le Further, the Tribunal, as per th sumed that the deceased being 22 ye to 5 years. Accordingly, the ld. Tr claimants to be ₹1000/- per month dency to be ₹12,000/- (₹1000 x 12). g in view the age of the claimants bei 2 years (appellant No. 2) respectively al had calculated amount of compens The contention of learned coun t has been granted by the Tribunal un uneral Expenses is incorrect as, the d on the basis of statement of applican tated as PW-1 that ‘an amount rtation and cremation of the dead d Tribunal had awarded an amount of It is my view that the said am mity with the law prevailing at the shown to this Court that would m However, there is no merit in the perusal of the record shows that pellant No. 1/ PW-1, no evidence rd to prove the abovesaid avocation uation, no error can be found in the the learned Tribunal as ₹2000/- per per the law prevailing at that time 22 years old, he might get married Tribunal had taken dependency month; thereby calculating annual 12). Multiplier of 16 was applied, nts being 35 years (appellant No. 1) ctively. In this manner, the learned mpensation as ₹1,92,000/- (12000 x counsel for the appellants that less nal under the Heads Transportation the said amount of ₹6000/- was pplicant/appellant No. 1 who herself nt of ₹5-6000/- was spent on dead body’. In this manner, the unt of ₹1,98,000/-. amount of compensation is in the relevant time. Nothing has uld merit interference with the the that ence tion the per time ncy nual lied, o. 1) rned 00 x less tion was rself on the RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-15871 impugned A legislation y cannot be a Hon’ble Sup Kaur & Oth K.S.R.T.C. V amount of be a bonanza a pittance. I Thomas & Court has h cannot be the afore-noted by the appel formula laid 9. that merits i dismissed 10. 23.03.2026 rishu 871-2018 (O&M) -9- ned Award. No doubt Chapter-12 tion yet, as cautioned by the Hon’bl t be allowed to be treated as a win le Supreme Court in State of Harya Others, Law Finder Doc ID # 6404 .C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty’, (2003) 7 t of compensation should be just and onanza nor a source of profit but at th nce. In the case of General Manag s & Others, 1994 Volume-II SCC has held that misplaced sympathy, g t be the guiding factor for determining noted facts, it would appear that the p appellants only with a view to take la laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme C In view of the discussion abov erits interference with the impugned on merits as well as on the ground Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 12 of the Act is a beneficial on’ble Supreme Court, the same a windfall or a source of profit. aryana & Another Vs. Jasbir 64043 and Divisional Controller 03) 7 SCC 197, has held that the st and reasonable, it should neither t at the same time it should not be anager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme athy, generosity and benevolence ining the compensation. From the t the present appeal has been filed take advantage of the structured reme Court in recent years. above, I find no case is made out gned Award. The present appeal is ground of delay. any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No out al is RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.