IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 116 I. FAO-2018-2021 Manjoor Khan and another . . . . Appellants Vs. Joginder Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** II. FAO-2039-2021 Nand Kishore and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Joginder Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** Date of decision: 13.07.2026 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Taanvi Dhull, Advocate, for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Since both these appeals arise out of the same motor vehicular accident and involve identical questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Separate awards dated 18.07.2019 were passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, awarding compensation on account of the deaths of Sarafat and Jatinder Shah @ Kalu, who lost their lives in the same accident. 3. FAO-2018-2021 and FAO-2039-2021 have been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. FAO-2018-2021 is accompanied by CM-11016-CII-2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2018-2021 2026:PHHC: 094848 FAO-2039-2021 seeking condonation of delay of 151 days in filing the appeal. Similar relief is sought in FAO-2039-2021 by way of CM-11031-CII-2021. 4. The explanation furnished in both the applications is identical. It is pleaded that after obtaining certified copies of the awards, the appellants were unable to arrange the professional fee of their counsel on account of financial constraints and, therefore, the appeals could not be filed within the prescribed period. 5. The explanation does not constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Except making a bald assertion regarding financial difficulty, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the appellants were prevented from approaching this Court within limitation despite exercising due diligence. Significantly, no attempt was made to avail legal aid through the Legal Services Authorities, though such a statutory mechanism exists precisely for litigants unable to afford legal representation. The appellants had throughout been represented before the Tribunal and nothing has been shown as to why they could not seek appropriate legal assistance within time. Consequently, this Court finds no sufficient ground to condone the delay of 151 days. Both the applications are, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Even otherwise, having examined the matter on merits, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the impugned awards. 7. The only grievance urged by ld. Counsel for the appellants is against the finding of the Tribunal, whereby the driver of the motorcycle was held contributorily negligent to the extent of one-third and the compensation payable to the claimants was correspondingly reduced. 8. The evidence on record shows that on the intervening night of 25/26.07.2017, Sarafat (deceased), Jatinder Shah @ Kalu (deceased), Gulab and Vashist were travelling on motorcycle No. PB-32-N-2582 from Ludhiana towards Mata Naina Devi. The motorcycle was being driven by Jatinder Shah @ Kalu. At about 1.30 a.m., near Behlolpur Canal Over Bridge, it collided with a VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2018-2021 2026:PHHC: 094848 FAO-2039-2021 truck, which had been parked on the metalled portion of the road without parking lights, reflectors or any other warning indicators. 9. The Tribunal rightly held that parking a heavy vehicle on the carriageway during night hours without adopting elementary safety measures constituted actionable negligence on the part of the truck driver. At the same time, the Tribunal found that the motorcycle was carrying four adult persons, though it was designed to carry only two. Such overloading was in clear violation of the statutory safety requirements and was a relevant circumstance while assessing whether the driver of the motorcycle had exercised reasonable care expected of a prudent person. 10. It is true that mere violation of a statutory provision does not, by itself, establish contributory negligence. Nevertheless, contributory negligence has to be determined on the cumulative effect of all attending circumstances. In the present case, the collision occurred at about 1.30 a.m.; the motorcycle was carrying double its permissible capacity; and it struck a stationary truck parked on the roadway. The driver of the motorcycle was under a corresponding duty to maintain a proper lookout and exercise effective control over the vehicle. Carrying four adults on a motorcycle materially affects its stability, maneuverability and braking efficiency. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in treating the overloading as one of the contributing factors which, coupled with the negligent parking of the truck, resulted in the accident. 11. The finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal is essentially one of fact based upon appreciation of the evidence and surrounding circumstances. The assessment of contributory negligence at one- third cannot be said to be arbitrary, capricious or so unreasonable as to warrant interference in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 12. Insofar as FAO-2018-2021 arising out of the death of Sarafat is concerned, it is also not in dispute that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not impleaded as respondents. The claim petition was instituted only against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2018-2021 2026:PHHC: 094848 FAO-2039-2021 Therefore, once contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver has rightly been recorded, the Tribunal was justified in reducing the compensation payable by the respondents before it to the extent of the negligence attributable to the motorcycle driver. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any perversity, misreading of evidence or erroneous application of law in the findings recorded by the Tribunal so as to justify interference by this Court. 14. Consequently, both the applications seeking condonation of delay are dismissed. Even on merits, finding no substance in either of the appeals, FAO-2018-2021 and FAO-2039-2021 are also dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document