FAO-1728-2021 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1728-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.07.2026 Pooja Goyal and another ...Appellants Versus Nand Kishor and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Ritesh, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Singh Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants- appellants seeking enhancement of the compensa6on awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. It is not in dispute that one Isha Goyal died in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 28.03.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-38-E-9831. Her parents ins6tuted a claim pe66on under Sec6on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa6on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The claim pe66on was contested. The learned Tribunal, upon apprecia6on of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck and awarded a compensa6on of ₹5,00,000/- vide award dated 07.03.2015, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same along with interest. 3. The present appeal against the aforesaid award has been ins6tuted in August, 2021. The appeal is accompanied by CM-10421-CII- 2021 under Sec6on 5 of the Limita6on Act seeking condona6on of delay of 348 days in filing the appeal and CM-10419-CII-2021 under Sec6on 151 CPC YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.17 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1728-2021 (O&M) [2] seeking condona6on of delay of 1177 days in refiling the appeal. 4. In the applica6on seeking condona6on of delay in filing the appeal, it is pleaded that the appellants, being the parents of the deceased, were under severe mental shock on account of the unfortunate and un6mely death of their only child, who was a minor at the relevant 6me. It is further averred that when they subsequently contacted their counsel for filing the appeal, they came to know that the period of limita6on had already expired. On that basis, condona6on of delay has been sought. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have carefully considered the averments made in both the applica6ons. 6. The principles governing an applica6on under Sec6on 5 of the Limita6on Act are fairly well seFled. Although the expression "sufficient cause" deserves a liberal construc6on, par6cularly in maFers arising under the Motor Vehicles Act where the legisla6on is beneficial in nature, the discre6on to condone delay cannot be exercised in a rou6ne or mechanical manner. Liberal interpreta6on does not dispense with the requirement that the applicant must furnish a bona fide, cogent and sa6sfactory explana6on covering the en6re period of delay. Negligence, inac6on or lack of due diligence cannot cons6tute sufficient cause merely because refusal to condone delay may result in dismissal of the proceedings on the ground of limita6on. 7. Examined on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, the explana6on furnished by the appellants for condona6on of delay of 348 days in filing the appeal does not inspire confidence. The sole ground urged is that the appellants were under immense mental shock on account of the un6mely death of their only daughter. Undoubtedly, the Court can well appreciate the trauma suffered by the parents on losing their only child. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.17 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1728-2021 (O&M) [3] However, such circumstance, by itself, cannot furnish an explana6on for the en6re period of delay in the absence of material demonstra6ng that the appellants were prevented from pursuing their legal remedy with reasonable diligence. It deserves no6ce that despite the unfortunate demise of their daughter on 28.03.2014, the appellants ins6tuted the claim pe66on before the learned Tribunal within a short 6me thereaIer and diligently prosecuted the same 6ll its disposal on 07.03.2015. This conduct clearly shows that they were capable of taking legal recourse notwithstanding the tragedy. 8. The appellants were throughout represented by a counsel before the learned Tribunal. It is neither pleaded that they were unaware of their statutory remedy of appeal nor that they were incorrectly advised regarding limita6on. Significantly, the applica6on does not disclose as to when they approached the counsel for filing the appeal, when they first learnt that the appeal had become barred by limita6on, or what steps were taken by them during the interregnum. The pleadings are conspicuously silent on the material par6culars necessary to explain the delay. The explana6on, therefore, remains vague and does not establish that the appellants acted with the degree of diligence expected of a li6gant seeking equitable relief under Sec6on 5 of the Limita6on Act. 9. Equally untenable is the explana6on offered for condona6on of delay of 1177 days in refiling the appeal. The plea that the file was inadvertently mixed with decided maFers in the office of the counsel, subsequently misplaced on account of shiIing of chambers and later traced during sor6ng of records, is not substan6ated by any reliable material. Neither the concerned advocate nor the clerk, who alone could have personal knowledge of the alleged events, has chosen to file an affidavit. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.17 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1728-2021 (O&M) [4] The applica6on is supported only by the affidavit of appellant Pooja Goyal, who admiFedly could have no personal knowledge regarding the internal func6oning of the office of the counsel. The explana6on thus remains unverified by the persons best competent to depose about the facts pleaded therein. 10. It is trite that though some la6tude may be shown where delay in refiling occurs on account of procedural defects, a li6gant is nevertheless expected to vigilantly pursue the maFer aIer the appeal has been ins6tuted. A delay extending to 1177 days cannot be condoned merely on the basis of vague asser6ons regarding misplacement of the file in the office of the counsel, par6cularly in the absence of any suppor6ng affidavit or contemporaneous material. Such explana6on falls short of the requirement of establishing "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Sec6on 5 of the Limita6on Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is sa6sfied that the appellants have failed to furnish any sa6sfactory or convincing explana6on either for the delay of 348 days in filing the appeal or for the delay of 1177 days in refiling the same. Consequently, CM-10421-CII-2021 and CM-10419-CII-2021 are dismissed. 12. As a necessary corollary, the present appeal, being hopelessly barred by limita6on, also stands dismissed. 16.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.17 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document