IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 105 FAO-4079-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision.:12.05.2026 Kulwinder Kaur and Others …..Appellants Vs. Gurpal Singh Atwal and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) One Harmesh Lal lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 25.10.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registra'on No. PB-02-BG-2424. His widow and three children 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, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide award dated 24.08.2016 awarded compensa'on of ₹9,95,000/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Seeking enhancement of the compensa'on amount, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants. The appeal is accompanied by an applica'on bearing No.CM-13445-CII-2019 filed under Sec'on 5 of the Limita'on Act praying for condona'on of delay of 876 days in filing the appeal. 3. As per the averments made in the applica'on, a;er pronouncement of the award, cer'fied copy thereof was applied for and was delivered on 17.09.2016. It is pleaded that the appellants were not paid the awarded compensa'on 'll February, 2019 and only therea;er their NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4079-2019 (O&M) counsel, who had represented them before the Tribunal, advised them to approach this Court for seeking enhancement of compensa'on. On this basis, it is contended that the delay in filing the appeal was neither inten'onal nor deliberate and deserves to be condoned in the interest of jus'ce. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has been heard and the record has been perused. 5. The law rela'ng to condona'on of delay under Sec'on 5 of the Limita'on Act is well se?led. Though a liberal approach is ordinarily adopted in ma?ers concerning compensa'on under the Motor Vehicles Act, nevertheless the party seeking condona'on is required to disclose sufficient cause explaining the delay in a reasonable and sa'sfactory manner. The expression “sufficient cause” cannot be construed so liberally as to render the law of limita'on o'ose. 6. In the present case, admi?edly the appellants were duly represented by a counsel before the learned Tribunal. It is also not disputed that cer'fied copy of the award had been obtained as early as on 17.09.2016. Thus, the appellants were fully aware of the contents of the award as well as of their legal remedies. 7. The principal explana'on furnished by the appellants is that the awarded compensa'on had not been disbursed 'll February, 2019 and therea;er they were advised to file an appeal for enhancement. However, non-payment or delayed payment of awarded compensa'on cannot be regarded as a condi'on precedent for preferring an appeal seeking enhancement of compensa'on. The right to challenge the adequacy of compensa'on accrues immediately upon pronouncement of the award and is wholly independent of the actual disbursement thereof. 8. What further assumes significance is that, as per the own Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4079-2019 (O&M) averments contained in the applica'on, the appellants did not make any effort for more than two years either to pursue the ma?er with their counsel or to take appropriate legal recourse. No sa'sfactory explana'on has been furnished accoun'ng for this prolonged period of inac'on and negligence. 9. The explana'on offered in the applica'on is vague and lacks par'culars sufficient to jus'fy condona'on of an inordinate delay of 876 days. Mere asser'on that the appellants were advised at a later stage to file the appeal does not cons'tute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Sec'on 5 of the Limita'on Act. 10. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have failed to make out any ground warran'ng exercise of discre'onary jurisdic'on for condona'on of such enormous delay. 11. Consequently, the applica'on seeking condona'on of delay is dismissed. 12. As a natural corollary thereof, the accompanying appeal also stands dismissed as being barred by limita'on. 13. 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. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document