FAO-212-20 IN THE HIG 261 Munish Kum Shri Sandeep CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-220-CI 1. Limitation A inordinate de 2. filing the app 3. 2020 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA h Kumar Gill Versus andeep Kumar Arora and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate Ms. Harkirat Kaur, Advocate fo Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate f Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for re I GUPTA, J. CII-2020 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963 is for condonation o nate delay 1204 days in filing the acco The only reason given for con the appeal is as under:- “2. That the appellant had m had go multiple serious injuri knee were fractures and he wa were inserted and he also l sustained brain injury. In the sa also fractured and had becom thus unable to earn his li constraints, he was not in a pos within its limitation period. money from his relatives, the appeal as the learned tribun compensation and the appell amount, as claimed in his cla reason, the delay in filing the pr Heard. D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-212-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:23.03.2026 .…Appellant ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA ocate for the appellant. cate for cate for respondent No. 2. for respondent No. 3. on filed under Section 5 of the tion of delay of extraordinary and e accompanying appeal. condonation 1204 days delay in ad met with a road accident and njuries as both of his legs above was operated upon an iron road so lost his memory as he had he said accident his right arm was come permanently disable and is s livelihood. Due to financial position to file the present appeal od. Now after borrowing some , the appellant filed the present ribunal had awarded a meager ppellant is entitled for the full s claim petition. So, due to this he present appeal has occurred.” the and y in nd ve ad ad as is ial al me nt er ull is RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-212-20 4. application condonation the accomp applicant-ap the Hon’ble of lackadaisi the rights of of every liti duty of this This is the although the within the st no evidence financial con to on wha Applicant w pursuing a re appeal. Be party. Refere of the Hon’b Jeejeebhoy 2020 (O&M) -2- The reasons given by the ation do not constitute a cogent o nation of extraordinary and inordinate ccompanying appeal. The cryptic ex appellant does not constitute ‘suff n’ble Supreme Court has come do adaisical litigants. It is to be apprecia hts of the parties get crystallised. It is ry litigant to pursue his case diligen f this Court to ensure that justice inu s the very purpose of the law of lim the applicant has stated that he w the stipulated time as he is permanent dence to this effect. There is even no e ial constraints as even on a Court que what date was the Award amoun ant was therefore not diligent in p ng a remedy is leads to the party, losi l. Besides being prejudicial to Reference in this regard is ma Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of bhoy (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 25 “25. It hardly matters whethe or a State or Union of India the gross delay of more tha chooses to approach the cour time prescribed under the rel then he cannot turn around would be caused to either the applicant-appellant in the gent or plausible explanation for rdinate delay of 1024 days in filing explanation furnished by the e ‘sufficient cause’. In recent years, e down heavily on the malaise preciated that over a period of time d. It is, therefore, the bounden duty iligently; as it is also the bounden ce inures to both parties concerned. of limitation. In the present case, t he was unable to file the appeal anently disabled, however, there is n no evidence that the applicant had rt query, nothing has been stated as amount released to the applicant. t in pursuing his case. Delay in ty, losing his/her right to pursue the l to the rights of the other s made to a recent judgment on of India v. Jahangir Byramji d # 2537649, as under:- ether a litigant is a private party dia when it comes to condoning e than 12 years. If the litigant court long after the lapse of the e relevant provisions of the law, ound and say that no prejudice ither side by the delay being the for iling the ears, laise time duty den ned. ase, peal re is had d as . y in the ther ent RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-212-20 2020 (O&M) -3- condoned. This litigation b sometime in 1981. We are in elapsed. However, till date t able to reap the fruits of his d of justice if we condone the days and once again ask the rigmarole of the legal proceed 26. The length of the delay is court must take into consi whether the delay should be tenor of the approach of the they want to fix their own instituting the proceedings for period of limitation. Once it his right to have the matter c of his own inaction for a lon be non-deliberate delay and i case, he cannot be heard to justice deserves to be preferr considerations. While cons condonation of delay, the co merits of the main matter. Th ascertain the bona fides of th party seeking condonation. It assigned by the litigant and side is equally balanced that the merits of the matter for th delay. 27. We are of the view that not merely a technical co limitation are based on the policy and principles of equi `Sword of Damocles' hang respondent for indefinite peri at the whims and fancies of th XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 35. In a plethora of decision said that delay should not b generosity. Rendering substa prejudice to the opposite part to prove that they were reaso the matter and this vital test fo satisfied in this case.” n between the parties started e in 2024. Almost 43 years have te the respondent has not been is decree. It would be a mockery the delay of 12 years and 158 k the respondent to undergo the ceedings. ay is a relevant matter which the onsideration while considering be condoned or not. From the f the appellants, it appears that own period of limitation for s for which law has prescribed a e it is held that a party has lost ter considered on merits because long, it cannot be presumed to nd in such circumstances of the rd to plead that the substantial eferred as against the technical considering the plea for e court must not start with the r. The court owes a duty to first of the explanation offered by the n. It is only if the sufficient cause and the opposition of the other that the court may bring into aid or the purpose of condoning the that the question of limitation is l consideration. The rules of the principles of sound public equity. We should not keep the anging over the head of the period of time to be determined of the appellants isions of this Court, it has been ot be excused as a matter of bstantial justice is not to cause party. The appellants have failed easonably diligent in prosecuting est for condoning the delay is not (Emphasis added) RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-212-20 5. others vs. 2542600, the th ev 6. explained. In the Hon’ble Shivamma ( 2020 (O&M) -4- Again, in Pathapati Subba R The Special Deputy Collector ( the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rec “26. On a harmonious consi the law, as aforesaid, and the law evident that: (i)Law of limitation is based should be an end to litigati remedy rather than the right i (ii) A right or the remedy th availed of for a long time mu exist after a fixed period of tim (iii) The provisions of the construed differently, such as in a strict sense whereas S liberally; (iv In order to advance subs approach, justice-oriented app justice may be kept in mind defeat the substantial law Section 3 of the Limitation Ac (v) Courts are empowered to e the delay if sufficient cause exercise of power is discretion exercised even if sufficient ca factors such as, where there i and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obt it does not mean that others benefit if the court is not satis the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are no condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation app the parameters laid down f condoning the delay for the re been imposed, tantamounts provision.” It is cardinal principle of law th ned. In this regard, reference may be n’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appea mma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka ba Reddy (Died) by LRs and ector (LA), Law Finder Doc Id # has recently held as under: - onsideration of the provisions of e law laid down by this Court, it is sed upon public policy that there igation by forfeiting the right to ght itself; y that has not been exercised or must come to an end or cease to f time; the Limitation Act have to be h as Section 3 has to be construed as Section 5 has to be construed substantial justice, though liberal d approach or cause of substantial but the same cannot be used to law of limitation contained in n Act; to exercise discretion to condone use had been explained, but that etionary in nature and may not be t cause is established for various ere is inordinate delay, negligence obtained relief in similar matter, ers are also entitled to the same satisfied with the cause shown for eal; e not required to be considered in application has to be decided on n for condoning the delay and he reason that the conditions have to disregarding the statutory (Emphasis added) law that delay of each day has to be ay be made to a recent judgment of ppeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as ataka Housing Board and others, and Id # of is re to or to be ed ed ral ial to in ne at be us ce er, me or in on nd ve ry o be t of d as ers, RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-212-20 2025 INSC 2777666, w mathematica No cogent r applicant for filing the a inordinate d obsolete/redu 7. by the Hon’ no cogent o appellant for of 1204 days 8. FAO-212-20 1. seeking enha by the learne learned Trib 111/2014 da 2. basis of pl claimant-inju took place o registration Arora; owne 2020 (O&M) -5- INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.202 wherein it is held that each day’s matical manner which has not been do gent reason or plausible explanation ant for condonation of such an inordin the accompanying appeal. Moreov nate delay would be tantamount to de te/redundant, without any justification I am in complete agreement w Hon’ble Apex Court. In the present gent or plausible explanation has b for condonation of aforesaid inord days in filing the accompanying app Accordingly, the present applica 2020 The appellant-injured/claimant g enhancement of the compensation am learned Motor Accident Claims Tribu d Tribunal) vide Award dated 20.01 14 dated 26.05.2014 filed u/s 166 of t Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduce injured had suffered injuries in a lace on 23.06.2011 due to rash and ne ation No. PB-08-BR-0909 by respo ; owned by respondent No. 2-Sanje 09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # s delay has to be explained in a een done by the applicant-appellant. nation has been furnished by the inordinate and unexplained delay in oreover, condonation of such an t to declaring the law of limitation ication. ent with the above view expressed resent case, as already noted above, has been given by the applicant/ inordinate and extraordinary delay ng appeal. application stands dismissed. imant had filed the present appeal tion amount of ₹7,17,478/- awarded s Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short-‘the 20.01.2016, passed in MACP No. 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that in a motor vehicular accident that and negligent driving of car bearing respondent No.1-Sandeep Kumar Sanjeev Kumar; and insured by d # in a lant. the y in an tion ssed ove, elay peal rded ‘the No. the that that ring mar by RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-212-20 respondent compensatio date of filin were held jo 3. of the com compensatio account the that in the a which has af appellant ha also operated been ignore compensatio 4. Tribunal had appellant ha undergoing t such as Atte lower side. allowed; and compensatio 5. Company ve appellant-cla by the learne 2020 (O&M) -6- dent No. 3-Insurance Company nsation as above along with interest f filing the claim petition till actual jointly and severally liable to pay Learned counsel for the injured compensation amount by submitti nsation payable to the appellant, the T nt the permanent disability suffered by the accident in question the appella has affected his memory; and his righ ant had also suffered fracture both of perated upon and iron rods were insert ignored by the Tribunal while nsation. Further, under the Head ‘Med al had awarded meager amount of ₹ ant have spent more than ₹6,00,000 oing treatment. Even the amounts aw s Attendant Charges, loss of income, side. Accordingly, it is prayed that d; and the Award dated 20.01.2016 be nsation be enhanced. Per Contra, learned counsel fo vehemently opposes the submissio claimant and submits that the amo learned Tribunal is just and fair in th mpany. Ld. Tribunal awarded terest @ 7.5% per annum from the actual realization. All respondents o pay the compensation. injured-claimant seeks enhancement bmitting that while assessing the , the Tribunal had failed to take into red by the appellant. It is submitted ppellant had sustained brain injury is right arm was also fractured. The oth of his legs above knees and was inserted. However, these facts have while assessing the amount of Medical Treatment’, the learned ₹4,92,478/- as the parents of the 00,000/- and the appellant is still nts awarded under the other Heads come, pain and suffering etc. are on d that the present appeal may be 016 be modified; and the amount of sel for respondent No. 3-Insurance missions advanced on behalf of the e amount of compensation awarded ir in the facts and circumstances of rded the ents the into itted jury The was ave of rned f the still eads e on be t of ance f the rded s of RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-212-20 the present suffered by only suffere Accordingly 6. either of the perused the learned coun 7. accident in q fractures, h Certificate t record, the where he wa Hospital, Ja 27.07.2011 Tagore Hosp admitted in further testif ‘head injuri fracture low examined Tagore Hosp admitted, he injuries’. Ho regard to any 2020 (O&M) -7- esent case. It is submitted that no p ed by the appellant in the accident in uffered fractures for which he had b dingly, learned counsel prays for dism No other argument is raised on of the parties. I have heard learned d the case file in detail. I find no mer counsel for the appellant-claimant/in Although, it has been vehem nt in question the appellant had suffer , however, the appellant has n icate to prove the abovesaid assertio , the appellant was first taken to he was referred to Civil Hospital, Ja tal, Jalandhar where he remained a 2011. The appellant had examined PW e Hospital, Jalandhar, who has proved ed in the hospital w.e.f. 24.06.201 r testified that in the accident in questi njuries, communited fracture shaf lower and of radius right sides’. Th ned PW-9 Dr. Sandeep Goel from e Hospital, Jalandhar, who had depos ed, he was semi conscious and ‘was However, none of the above doct to any disability, permanent of otherw t no permanent disability has been ent in question. The appellant had had been adequately compensated. r dismissal of the present appeal. sed on behalf of learned counsel for earned counsel for the parties and o merit in the submissions made by ant/injured. vehemently submitted that in the suffered brain injury and numerous has not produced any Disability ssertions. As per the evidence on to Civil Hospital, Nakodar from ital, Jalandhar; and then to Tagore ined admitted from 24.06.2011 to PW-8 Dr. P.Lal Mahendru from proved that the appellant remained 6.2011 to 27.07.2011. PW-8 has question, the appellant had suffered shaft of femur both sides with The appellant-claimant had also from the Neurology Department, deposed that when the patient was as treated by orthopedist for other e doctors have stated nothing with otherwise suffered by the appellant een had . l for and e by the rous ility on rom gore 1 to om ined has h also ent, was er with llant RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-212-20 in the accide produced by whatsoever permanent d learned Trib permanent d 8. the accident business of month. How the learned T towards loss the appellant 9. amount of Amandeep S Chopra, Lab amount of learned Trib to the appell 1. Expense treatment 2. Expenses o 3. Loss of claimant re hospital. 4. Loss of pai 5. Special Die 6. Transporta Total Compe @ 7.5% per 2020 (O&M) -8- accident in question. Admittedly, no D ced by the appellant. In this view of th oever on record to show that the nent disability as claimed. Thus, there d Tribunal in not awarding anything nent disability. Further, it was the pleaded case cident, he was working as a Motor M ss of property dealing from which h However, no evidence to this effect rned Tribunal has awarded an amount s loss of income for the period of lit pellant had remained hospitalized. Further, the appellant had prod t of ₹4,92,478/- which were proved deep Singh; PW-6 Mukesh Kumar C a, Lab Assistant; and PW-10 Ravi K t of ₹4,92,478/- was duly reimbursed Tribunal has granted total amount of appellant-claimant in following manne penses incurred on medical ₹4,9 nses on Attendant ₹25 s of income for the period the nt remained admitted in the ₹50 of pain and suffering ₹1,0 ial Diet ₹25 sportation Charges ₹25 ompensation along with interest per annum ₹7,1 y, no Disability Certificate has been of the matter, there is no evidence t the appellant had suffered any , there is no error committed by the ything to the appellant by way of d case of the appellant that prior to otor Mechanic and was also doing hich he was earning ₹20,000/- per effect was led by the appellant. Yet mount of ₹50,000/- to the appellant of little over one month for which d produced various bill for a total roved from the evidence of PW-3 mar Cashier; PW-7 Sanjiv Kumar Ravi Kumar. Accordingly, the said bursed by the learned Tribunal. The unt of ₹7,17,478/- as compensation manner: - 4,92,478.00 25,000.00 50,000.00 1,00,000.00 25,000.00 25,000/- 7,17,478.00 een ence any the y of r to oing per Yet llant total 3 mar said tion RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-212-20 10. fair compens shown to th Award. No d cautioned by be treated as State of Ha Doc ID # 6 Shetty’, (200 should be ju source of pr case of Gen 1994 Volum misplaced sy factor for de 11. that merits dismissed as well. 12. 23.03.2026 rishu 2020 (O&M) -9- From the above facts, it is cle mpensation has been awarded to the to this Court that would merit inter . No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a ned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, th ated as a windfall or a source of profit Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir K # 64043 and Divisional Controller (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that th be just and reasonable, it should n of profit but at the same time it shou General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Su olume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Su ced sympathy, generosity and benevo for determining the compensation. In view of the discussion abov erits interference with the impug on the ground of inordinate delay Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable is clear that amore than just and to the appellant. Nothing has been it interference with the impugned ct is a beneficial legislation yet, as urt, the same cannot be allowed to profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ir Kaur & Others, Law Finder oller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva that the amount of compensation ould neither be a bonanza nor a it should not be a pittance. In the . Susamma Thomas & Others, ble Supreme Court has held that enevolence cannot be the guiding above, I find no case is made out impugned Award. The appeal is e delay of 1204 days and on merits, any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHIGUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No out l is rits, RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.