FAO-2262-2020 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2262-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2026 Ram Ra!an ...Pe##oner Versus Motri @ Yashpal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-23690-CII-2025 Allowed. Affidavit of appellant i.e. Ram Ra!an is taken on record FAO-2262-2020 (O&M) The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensa#on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant had sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident and, consequently, ins#tuted a claim pe##on under Sec#on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal, vide award dated 19.11.2008, awarded compensa#on of ₹2,84,067/- along with interest, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable. 2. The appeal has, however, been ins#tuted in the year 2020 with a delay of 4000 days. An applica#on, being CM-6434-CII-2020, has been filed under Sec#on 5 of the Limita#on Act, 1963 seeking condona#on of the said delay. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2262-2020 (O&M) [2] 3. The case set up by the appellant is that immediately aCer the award, he approached Sh. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate, for filing an appeal and handed over the requisite documents. Being an illiterate person, he remained under the bona fide impression that the appeal had been duly ins#tuted and admi!ed. It is further pleaded that upon subsequently learning of the unfortunate demise of the said counsel, he intended to move an applica#on for early hearing of the appeal, whereupon it came to his no#ce that no appeal had, in fact, been filed. On these premises, it is contended that the delay is bona fide and deserves to be condoned. 4. I have considered the submissions but find no ground to exercise the discre#onary jurisdic#on under Sec#on 5 of the Limita#on Act. 5. The law is well se!led that although the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Sec#on 5 of the Limita#on Act is to receive a liberal construc#on so as to advance substan#al jus#ce, such liberal approach does not dispense with the requirement that the applicant must furnish a cogent, credible and sa#sfactory explana#on covering the en#re period of delay. The Court is required to examine whether the li#gant acted with reasonable diligence and whether the delay was occasioned by circumstances beyond his control. Where the delay is extraordinary, the explana#on is expected to be correspondingly convincing. 6. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the explana#on furnished by the appellant falls considerably short of the requirement of law. The award sought to be challenged was passed on 19.11.2008, whereas the present appeal has been ins#tuted aCer nearly eleven years. The applica#on is conspicuously silent on several material par#culars. It does not disclose the date on which the appellant allegedly approached Sh. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate, nor does it indicate when the requisite documents were handed over. Likewise, there is no disclosure regarding the date of demise of the said counsel, the point of #me when the appellant intended to seek early YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2262-2020 (O&M) [3] hearing of the appeal, or the date on which he allegedly discovered that no appeal had been filed. 7. Equally significant is the absence of any explana#on to show that the appellant exercised reasonable diligence during the intervening period of almost eleven years. Even assuming that the appellant had ini#ally entrusted the ma!er to his counsel, there is nothing on record to show that he made any enquiry regarding the status of the appeal or took any steps to ascertain whether the proceedings had in fact been ins#tuted. The plea that the appellant is an illiterate person, by itself, cannot absolve him of the obliga#on to exhibit reasonable diligence, par#cularly when such an enormous period of delay is sought to be condoned. 8. The applica#on, therefore, neither furnishes a sa#sfactory explana#on covering the en#re period of delay nor establishes the existence of sufficient cause preven#ng the appellant from approaching this Court within the prescribed period of limita#on. In the absence of a bona fide and convincing explana#on, condoning a delay of 4000 days would virtually defeat the law of limita#on, which is founded upon the principle of certainty and finality in judicial proceedings. 9. Consequently, CM-6434-CII-2020 seeking condona#on of delay is dismissed. As a necessary consequence, the appeal, being hopelessly barred by limita#on, also stands dismissed. 15.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.16 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document