IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 103 FAO-6584-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision.:12.05.2026 Kamlesh and Others …..Appellants Vs. Jai Bhagwan and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) One Surender son of Shri Bhagwan Singh lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 26.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. His widow and two sons ins(tuted a claim pe((on under Sec(on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa(on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak vide award dated 28.09.2017 awarded compensa(on of ₹16,69,300/- along with interest and directed the respondents to pay the same jointly and severally. 2. Seeking enhancement of the compensa(on amount, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants. The appeal is accompanied by applica(on bearing No.CM-22942-CII-2018 filed under Sec(on 5 of the Limita(on Act praying for condona(on of delay of 229 days in filing the appeal. 3. In the applica(on seeking condona(on of delay, it has been pleaded that a<er the death of Surender, who was the sole breadwinner of the family, the appellants were le< without any independent source of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6584-2018 (O&M) livelihood. It is further averred that a<er receipt of the compensa(on amount in July, 2018, the appellants consulted their counsel and therea<er preferred the present appeal, resul(ng in delay of 229 days. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has been heard and the record has been perused. 5. It is well se?led that while considering applica(ons for condona(on of delay in ma?ers arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, a liberal approach is ordinarily required to be adopted keeping in view the beneficial nature of the legisla(on. However, at the same (me, the party seeking condona(on must disclose a plausible and sa(sfactory explana(on cons(tu(ng “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Sec(on 5 of the Limita(on Act and such explana(on must reasonably cover the en(re period of delay. 6. In the present case, the appellants were admi?edly represented by a counsel before the learned Tribunal and were fully aware of the award passed in their favour. The explana(on furnished in the applica(on is that they approached their counsel for filing the appeal only a<er receiving the awarded compensa(on amount. However, receipt of compensa(on is not a condi(on precedent for availing the statutory remedy of appeal seeking enhancement. 7. The applica(on is conspicuously silent as to why no steps were taken by the appellants for several months to seek legal advice or to pursue the remedy available to them under law. Mere financial hardship or delayed consulta(on with counsel, in absence of any cogent explana(on accoun(ng for the period of delay, cannot by itself cons(tute sufficient cause for condona(on. 8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have failed to furnish any sa(sfactory explana(on Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6584-2018 (O&M) jus(fying condona(on of delay of 229 days. Consequently, the applica(on seeking condona(on of delay deserves dismissal. 9. Even otherwise, on a prima facie considera(on of the ma?er, this Court does not find that refusal to condone the delay would occasion failure of jus(ce. 10. The sole conten(on raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal failed to grant addi(on towards future prospects while calcula(ng compensa(on. 11. No doubt, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased at ₹11,700/-, the learned Tribunal did not award any amount towards future prospects despite the deceased being approximately 46 years of age at the (me of accident. However, it is simultaneously no(ced that the learned Tribunal awarded substan(al amounts under the conven(onal heads, including ₹1,00,000/- towards consor(um to the widow and ₹3,00,000/- towards loss of love and affec(on to the claimants. 12. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naonal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 and “Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others”, 2018(18) SCC 130, compensa(on payable under conven(onal heads would require corresponding modifica(on. Thus, even if future prospects are taken into considera(on, the resultant enhancement would substan(ally stand neutralized by the amount already awarded under the conven(onal heads. 13. Accordingly, this Court does not find the compensa(on awarded by the learned Tribunal to be grossly inadequate or unjust so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdic(on. 14. Consequently, the applica(on for condona(on of delay is Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6584-2018 (O&M) dismissed and, as a natural corollary thereof, the accompanying appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limita(on. 15. Pending miscellaneous applica(on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 12, 2026 Nee(ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document