IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 114 FAO-1754-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision.:03.02.2026 Baskar and Others &..Appellants Vs. Sakeem and others .&.Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) On account of the death of one Naûsh in a motor vehicular accident, his widow, seven minor children and parents ûled a claim pe on under Sec on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensa on from the driver, owner and insurer of the oûending vehicle. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 08.01.2019, assessed the compensa on at ¹18,33,328/-, payable by the respondents jointly and severally along with interest. 2. The present appeal, assailing the award on the aspect of quantum of compensa on, has been ûled in February, 2022. The appeal is accompanied by an applica on bearing No. CM-4731-CII-2022 under Sec on 5 of the Limita on Act, 1963, seeking condona on of delay of 333 days. 3. In the applica on, it has been pleaded that the appellants are poor persons and were not aware of the legal posi on. It is further stated that upon being advised to ûle an appeal, they arranged the necessary funds, obtained cer ûed copies of the record and therea;er engaged counsel in the High Court, which resulted in the delay. The applica on is supported by the aûdavit of Smt. Baskar, one of the appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has been heard. 5. The law is well se?led that for condona on of delay under NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1754-2022 (O&M) -2- Sec on 5 of the Limita on Act, the applicant must show <suûcient cause= for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression <suûcient cause= must receive a liberal construc on; however, such liberality does not extend to condoning inordinate delay in the absence of bona ûde and convincing explana on covering the en re period of delay. 6. In the present case, the explana on oûered by the appellants is wholly vague and general. Merely sta ng that the appellants were unaware of the legal posi on or approached the High Court counsel at a later stage does not cons tute suûcient cause, par cularly when it is not disputed that they were duly represented by a counsel before the Tribunal at the me of passing of the award. No speciûc dates, steps taken, or intervening circumstances have been disclosed to sa sfactorily explain the prolonged delay of 333 days. 7. Ignorance of law or delay in arranging funds, without any suppor ng material or par culars, cannot be accepted as a valid ground for condona on of such a substan al delay. Acceptance of such an explana on would render the statutory period of limita on o ose and defeat the object of ûnality a?ached to judicial decisions. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not ûnd any suûcient cause to condone the delay of 333 days in ûling the appeal. 9. Consequently, the applica on for condona on of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal itself is dismissed as barred by limita on. 10. All pending miscellaneous applica on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 03, 2026 Nee ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.04 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document