IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 123 FAO-5976-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Saroj Kansal . . . . Appellant Vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate, for the appellant [through VC]. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. On account of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 21.01.2019, the claimant–Saroj Kansal instituted a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 03.01.2023, awarded total compensation of ₹3,64,119/-, comprising ₹2,24,119/- towards medical treatment and medicines, ₹50,000/- for pain and suffering, ₹20,000/- towards special diet, ₹10,000/- towards transportation, ₹20,000/- towards boarding and lodging and ₹30,000/- on account of temporary incapacity, besides interest. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. 3. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. The appeal is accompanied by CM-20431-CII-2023 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 199 days. 4. It is pleaded that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 65 years. It is submitted that there was considerable delay in disbursement of the VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.08 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5976-2023 2026:PHHC: 091635 compensation awarded by the Tribunal and only after receiving the said amount was she in a position to approach her counsel for filing the present appeal. It is further contended that the delay is bona fide and deserves to be condoned. 5. On merits, learned counsel submits that the appellant remained hospitalized for nearly twenty-five days and, therefore, the compensation of ₹50,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering is inadequate and deserves enhancement. 6. Having heard learned counsel and examined the record, this Court finds no merit either in the application for condonation of delay or in the appeal on merits. 7. The explanation furnished for condonation of delay does not disclose any "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant had actively pursued the claim petition through a duly engaged counsel before the learned Tribunal. The application does not disclose any circumstance showing that legal advice could not be obtained within the prescribed period of limitation. Mere delay in receiving the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot, by itself, furnish a legally sustainable explanation for not filing an appeal within time, particularly when the right to challenge the award accrues immediately upon its pronouncement and is not dependent upon its execution or disbursement. 8. Equally untenable is the plea of financial incapacity. Except for a bald assertion, no material has been placed on record to establish that the appellant was genuinely prevented from instituting the appeal on account of lack of financial resources. It is also not the case of the appellant that she made any endeavour to avail legal aid through the District Legal Services Authority or any other statutory mechanism available for providing legal assistance to eligible litigants. The explanation, therefore, remains vague, unsupported by any material particulars and fails to satisfactorily explain the entire period of delay of 199 days. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.08 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5976-2023 2026:PHHC: 091635 9. Consequently, CM-20431-CII-2023 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. 10. Even otherwise, this Court has examined the matter on merits and finds no ground warranting interference with the award. 11. Learned counsel fairly concedes that the appellant has not suffered any permanent disability as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident. It is also evident from the record that the appellant did not undergo any surgical procedure and was managed by conservative treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded the entire medical expenses actually incurred by the appellant and has further granted separate compensation towards special diet, transportation, boarding and lodging as well as temporary incapacity. 12. Compensation under the head of pain and suffering is necessarily assessed having regard to the nature of injuries, duration of treatment, extent of physical pain endured, requirement of surgical intervention, permanent disability, if any, and the overall impact of the injuries upon the claimant's normal life. In the present case, keeping in view that the appellant neither suffered any permanent disability nor underwent any surgery, and that compensation under the other consequential heads has separately been awarded, the amount of ₹50,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering cannot be said to be either inadequate or so disproportionately low as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. 13. No other argument has been advanced to demonstrate that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any legal or factual infirmity. 14. Resultantly, the appeal, being barred by limitation and otherwise devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 07.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.08 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document