HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 942 of 2017 AFR Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 196230 of 2017. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. The present First Appeal From Order has been preferred for enhancement of award arising out of judgment and award dated 18.12.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Etah in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 225 of 2007. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the delay of 7 years and 103 days in filing the appeal be condoned. He relied on the law laid down by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kamaljeet and others Vs. Suresh Chand and others; 2019 (2) TAC 820 ( P & H), where there was delay of 420 days in filing of the appeal. He further relied on the law laid down by Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) in Sudama and others Vs. Lal Singh and others; 2016(2) TAC 490 (MP), where delay was of 1483 days. All these judgments are only for persuasive value of this Court. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajeev Sharma Banarsi Lal Sharma .....Appellant(s) Harvindar Singh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has relied on law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021 (Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others, where delay was of 1011 days and was not condoned. 5. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd Vs. Gujrat Industrial Development Corporation; 2010 (79) ALR 647 (SC), where delay condonation application was filed with a delay of four years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years delay in filing appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Act. The appeal was allowed and the application under Section 5 of the Act was dismissed. The appeal filed before the High Court was dismissed as barred by time. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has also relied that it is the claimant himself who had availed all the benefits and thereafter preferred the present appeal with a delay of 7 years and 103 days. He himself the claimant and he enjoyed all the fruits of the award and now preferring further the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation. The application under Section 5 is not supported with reasonable and plausible reason for condoning the delay. The delay is of huge days i.e. 7 years and 103 days. 7. In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the appeal is also hereby dismissed. April 21, 2026 sfa/ FAFOD No. 942 of 2017 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad