FAO-1016-2018(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 FAO-1016-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 16.02.2026 Baljinder Singh ….Appellant Versus Salinder Kumar & ors. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate for the appellant (through VC). NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-3537-CII-2018 1. Prayer in this applica"on filed under 151 CPC is for condona"on of delay of 327 days in filing the appeal. 2. The only ground on which the applicant/appellant has sought condona"on of inordinate delay of 327 days in filing the present appeal is contained in para 2 of the above applica"on which reads as under:- “2. That the appellant belong to poor family and did not well versed with the law of limitaon, as such the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitaon.” 3. The above said reason does not cons"tute ‘sufficient cause’ as required as per law for exercise of discre"onary relief in condoning extraor- dinary delay of 327 days in filing the present appeal 4. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 tled as Shiv- amma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666, wherein it is MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-1016-2018(O&M) 2 held that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathema"cal manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellant. No cogent reason or plausible explana"on has been furnished by the applicant for condona"on of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying ap- peal. Moreover, condona"on of such an inordinate delay would be tanta- mount to declaring the law of limita"on obsolete/redundant, without any jus"fica"on. 5. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 327 days. Present applica"on accordingly stands dismissed. Main case 1. The present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensa"on of Rs.2,62,956/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pa"ala (for short “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 15.07.2016 passed in MACT Case No.117 of 2015 dated 15.04.2015 filed under Sec"on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina?er ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the par"es concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 03.01.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of Mohindra Bolero Trax bearing Registra"on No.PB-11-BK-5196 (hereina?er “the offending vehicle”); being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensa"on was awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents No.1 and 2 were held jointly MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-1016-2018(O&M) 3 and severally liable to pay the compensa"on amount; and respondent No.3 Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the en"re compensa"on. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensa"on by submiGng that learned Tribunal has assessed income of the appellant on lower side as only Rs.7,000 per month; whereas the appellant had duly proved on record that he was an agriculturist by profession and was earning much more. It is submiHed that learned Tribunal has also ignored the fact that the appellant had remained hospitalized for 13 days and has suffered 10% permanent disability. In this circumstance, compensa"on of Rs.2,62,956/- is very meager and deserves to be enhanced. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be modified and compensa"on of Rs.25.00 lacs be awarded to the appellant along with interest @ 18% per annum. 4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file in minute detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 5. A perusal of the record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that in the accident in ques"on, the appellant had “suffered mulple injuries on his person including fracture on his right thigh”. It was further pleaded by the appellant that prior to the accident, he was an agriculturist; that he had been rendered permanently disabled due to the accident because of which he was unable to work as an agriculturist. Appellant had further pleaded MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-1016-2018(O&M) 4 that he was paying Rs.75000/- per month to his servant appointed for doing the agriculture work. 6. However, a perusal of the record shows that the appellant was unable to prove that prior to the accident, he was engaged in agriculture work. Except for the bald statement made by the appellant, there is no documentary proof whatsoever such as of J Form or income tax return to show that the appellant was an agriculturist. In this circumstance, the Tribunal has correctly assessed monthly income of the appellant as Rs.7000/- per month on the basis of the Punjab Government No"fica"on as admissible to a daily wage labourer. 7. As regards, the alleged salary of Rs.75000/- per month paid by the appellant to his servant for doing agricultural work, the appellant has produced no record of any such salary. In fact, in his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, the appellant has not even disclosed the name of the servant so employed. 8. Further, as regards the injuries of mul"ple fracture along with injury on face etc., the same were proved by the appellant by examining PW-4 Dr. Rohit Singla, who has tes"fied that the appellant remained admiHed in the hospital from 04.01.2015 to 16.01.2016. Accordingly, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. I find the same to be sufficient. The appellant had proved that in the accident in ques"on, he had suffered 10% disability vide the Disability Cer"ficate Ex.P-2 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Pa"ala. The appellant had also produced medical bills Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-25 for an amount of Rs.1,15,356/-, which was duly reimbursed to the appellant by learned Tribunal. As per the Discharge Summary, at the "me of accident, the MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-1016-2018(O&M) 5 appellant was 42 years old. Accordingly, the Tribunal had correctly applied the mul"plier of 14 and had granted total compensa"on of Rs.2,62,956/- in the following manner:- Sr. Head Calcula"ons 1. Monthly income Rs.7000/- 2. Compensa"on a?er mul"plier of 14 is applied on account of 10% permanent disability. Rs.7000/x12x14x10/100=Rs.1,17,600/- 3. Pain & Suffering Rs.30,000/- 4. Compensa"on on account of medical expenses Rs.1,15,356/- 5. Total Rs.2,62,956/- 10. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair com- pensa"on has been awarded to the injured. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensa"on granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial le- gisla"on yet, as cau"oned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same can- not be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur” Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva She;y and an- other” (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensa"on should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same "me it should not be a piHance. 9. It is also to be noted that in fact, in the present case, the appellant is not en"tled to any compensa"on on account of the fact that in respect of the accident in ques"on, FIR No.4 dated 04.01.2015 was registered under Sec"ons 279, 337, 338 & 427 of IPC, at Police Sta"on Sadar, Pa"ala. On the statement made by the appellant, respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle has been acquiHed by learned Judicial MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh FAO-1016-2018(O&M) 6 Magistrate, Ist Class, Pa"ala vide judgment dated 01.08.2018 "tled as ‘State vs. Salinder Kumar’. Para 17 & 18 of the said judgment reads as follows:- “17. The other material witnesses PW6 complainant Baljinder Singh and PW7 Amandeep Singh stated that they do not know the facts of the present case and they did not idenfy the accused present in the court. 18. Since PW6 complainant Baljinder Singh and PW7 Amandeep Singh did not support the prosecuon version, so, they were declared hosle on the request of learned APP for the state and she was allowed to cross-examine these witnesses, but nothing fruiBul could be extracted from them despite their lengthy cross-examinaon. Since case of prosec- uon depends mainly on statements of PW6 complainant Baljinder Singh and PW7 Amandeep Singh, but both of them have not supported the case of prosecuon, therefore, there is no evidence on record which could connect the accused with the commission of the offence in ques- on as the material witnesses and did not support the prosecuon case and were declared hosle on the request of learned APP for the state.” 11. Thus, keeping in view the en"rety of the above noted facts, the present Appeal is hereby dismissed on merits, as well as on grounds of delay. 12. Pending applica"on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) 16.02.2026 JUDGE monika i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No MONIKA VERMA 2026.02.18 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh