FAO-4515-2023 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4515-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Smt. Sudesh and another ...Appellants Versus Krishan Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Pradeep Chhoker, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-15076-CII-2023 This applica2on has been filed under Sec2on 5 of the Limita2on Act seeking condona2on of 523 days' delay in filing the accompanying appeal. 2. The accompanying appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensa2on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. The claim pe22on arose out of a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 02.04.2018, resul2ng in the death of Vikas. His mother and minor son ins2tuted a pe22on under Sec2on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensa2on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The widow of the deceased was impleaded as a proforma respondent. Vide award dated 22.11.2021, the learned Tribunal awarded compensa2on of ₹18,84,400/- together with interest, holding respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to sa2sfy the award. 4. Dissa2sfied with the quantum of compensa2on, the present appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limita2on. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4515-2023 (O&M) [2] 5. In support of the applica2on, it has been pleaded that the appellants are not conversant with legal proceedings and were unaware of the prescribed period of limita2on. It is further averred that the brief of the case had ini2ally been handed over to an advocate, but the appellants were unable to pay the professional fee demanded by him. Consequently, they approached the present counsel, who has filed the present appeal. It is, therefore, prayed that the delay of 523 days be condoned as the same was neither deliberate nor inten2onal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have carefully considered the averments made in the applica2on. 7. It is true that while considering applica2ons for condona2on of delay in maDers arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Courts ordinarily adopt a liberal approach, the Act being a beneficial piece of legisla2on intended to provide just compensa2on to vic2ms of motor accidents and their dependents. However, such liberality does not dispense with the statutory requirement of establishing "sufficient cause" under Sec2on 5 of the Limita2on Act. The discre2on vested in the Court is required to be exercised on judicial principles, and every applicant must disclose a bona fide and sa2sfactory explana2on covering the en2re period of delay. 8. Examined on the aforesaid touchstone, the explana2on furnished by the appellants falls far short of the requirement of law. The applica2on merely states that the brief had been entrusted to "some advocate" who did not file the appeal because of non-payment of professional fee. Significantly, the applica2on does not disclose the iden2ty of the said advocate, the date on which the brief was allegedly entrusted to him, the period for which the maDer remained pending with him, or the date on which he allegedly declined to file the appeal. No material has been placed on record to substan2ate the aforesaid asser2ons. The explana2on is thus vague, bereI of par2culars and incapable of inspiring confidence. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4515-2023 (O&M) [3] 9. Equally significant is the fact that the appellants were throughout represented by a counsel before the learned Tribunal. They had, therefore, the benefit of legal assistance and advice at the 2me the award was pronounced. In such circumstances, the plea that they were unaware of the statutory period of limita2on cannot, by itself, cons2tute sufficient cause. A li2gant who is represented through counsel is ordinarily presumed to have knowledge of the legal remedies available to him and the limita2on prescribed for availing such remedies. 6. The applica2on is also conspicuously silent with regard to the prolonged period of inac2on aIer the award. Except making general asser2ons regarding ignorance of law and financial inability, no explana2on has been furnished which sa2sfactorily accounts for the delay of as many as 523 days. The explana2on neither covers the en2re period of delay nor demonstrates that the appellants acted with due diligence in pursuing the remedy available to them. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned by the appellants do not cons2tute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Sec2on 5 of the Limita2on Act. To condone such an inordinate delay in the absence of a sa2sfactory and bona fide explana2on would virtually render the law of limita2on nugatory. 8. Accordingly, CM-15076-CII-2023 seeking condona2on of delay is dismissed. As a necessary consequence of the dismissal of the applica2on for condona2on of delay, the accompanying appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limita2on. Pending miscellaneous applica2on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 20.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document