FAO-5204 IN THE HIG 113 Nabli Mubarik and CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-19630 1. Limitation A accompanyin 2. filing the app 04-2024 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Versus and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Nafeesh Ahmed, Advocate I GUPTA, J. 9630-CII-2024 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963 is for condonation of d panying appeal. The only reason given for cond the appeal is as under:- “2. That the appellant is ver solely dependent income of dec deceased (husband of appellan completely shattered due to un the applicant became depended circumstances, it is bit difficult engage counsel to file appeal after arranging funds, the app filing of appeal before the applicant approached the und has been prepared. Secondly, technicalities of limitation pe appeal. Thereafter, somehow appellant approached the unde D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5204-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 .…Appellant ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA ocate for the appellant. on filed under Section 5 of the on of delay of 469 days in filing the condonation of 469 days delay in very poor lady and she was only f deceased, and after the death of ellant) life of the applicant’s has o untimely death of her husband, nded on her relatives In such like icult for her to arrange fee etc. to peal for enhancement, and now applicant engaged a lawyer for the Hon’ble High Court, then undersigned, accordingly appeal dly, she was not aware about the n period for filing the present ow after arranging money, the undersigned counsel for filing the the the y in ly of as d, ke to w for en al he nt he he RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5204 3. cause to con 4. explained. In the Hon’ble Shivamma ( 2025 INSC 2777666, w mathematica No cogent r applicant for filing the a inordinate d obsolete/redu 5. delay of 469 FAO-5204 1. enhancemen learned Mot Tribunal) vi bearing MA 166 of the M deceased-Bu 04-2024 (O&M) -2- present appeal before this H process, the delay of 469 days o The said reason is vague and to condone extraordinary delay of 469 It is cardinal principle of law th ned. In this regard, reference may be n’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appea mma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.202 wherein it is held that each day’s matical manner which has not been do gent reason or plausible explanation ant for condonation of such an inordin the accompanying appeal. Moreov nate delay would tantamount to dec te/redundant, without any justification As such, no ground is made o 469 days. Present application accord 5204-2024 The appellant-claimant has file cement of the compensation amount o d Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, al) vide impugned Award dated 13 g MACP No. 409 dated 18.08.2018/1 f the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The s Budhi who was 60 years old at the is Hon’ble High Court. In this ays occurred in filing the appeal.” e and does not constitute sufficient 469 days in filing present appeal. law that delay of each day has to be ay be made to a recent judgment of ppeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as ataka Housing Board and others, 09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # s delay has to be explained in a een done by the applicant-appellant. anation has been furnished by the inordinate and unexplained delay in oreover, condonation of such an to declaring the law of limitation ication. made out for condoning inordinate accordingly stands dismissed. filed the present appeal seeking ount of ₹5,02,000/- awarded by the bunal, Nuh (for short-‘the learned 13.04.2023, passed in petition 018/13.05.2022 filed under Section The sole claimant is the widow of at the time of accident. is ient o be t of d as ers, d # in a lant. the y in an tion nate king the rned ition tion of RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5204 2. basis of pl deceased-Bu vehicular acc rash and neg AS-4518 (h Mubarik; ow respondent compensatio of filing the held jointly a 3. compensatio the deceased the decease Minimum W have been ta amounts aw side; and int the present a modified; an claimant. 4. heard learne the submissi 04-2024 (O&M) -3- Brief facts of the case are that f pleadings and evidence adduce Budhi, had died due to injuries lar accident that took place on 17.07.2 nd negligent driving of motorcycle be (hereinafter ‘the offending veh ; owned by respondent No. 2- dent No. 3-Insurance Company nsation as above along with interest @ ng the claim petition till actual reali intly and severally liable to pay the co Learned counsel for the appe nsation by submitting that the Tribun ceased on the lower side as ₹8000/- eceased was an agriculturist. It is um Wages prevailing at that time, inc een take as ₹10,098.88/- per month. F awarded under the Conventional nd interest should also be enhanced. esent appeal may be allowed; and the and ₹30,00,000/- be awarded as c No other argument is raised on learned counsel and perused the case f bmissions made by learned counsel for re that the learned Tribunal on the dduced before it concluded that juries suffered by him in a motor 17.07.2018 at 10:00 a.m., due to the bearing registration No. RJ-05- g vehicle’) by respondent No.1- -Irfan Khan; and insured by mpany. Ld. Tribunal awarded rest @ 7% per annum from the date l realization. All respondents were compensation. e appellant seeks enhancement of ribunal had assessed the income of per month. It is submitted that It is contended that even as per e, income of the deceased ought to nth. Further, it is submitted that the tional Heads are also on the lower nced. Accordingly, it is prayed that nd the Award dated 13.04.2023 be d as compensation to the appellant- ed on behalf of the appellant. I have case file in detail. I find no merit in sel for the appellant-claimant. the that otor the by rded date ere of e of that per o t the wer that 3 be ave it in RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5204 5. the appellan deceased wa month. How to prove eith earning ₹20 presumed th income at prevailing in counsel for t time was ₹ produced by As such, I fin 6. the time of Noorddin, as Accordingly between fath deceased to of accident, were require Supreme Co Sethi and ot 7. correctly ma income of th 04-2024 (O&M) -4- Perusal of the record shows th pellant before the learned Tribuna ed was working as an agriculturist an . However, no evidence to this effect either that the deceased was owne 20,000/- per month. Accordingly the deceased to be an ordinary at ₹8000/- per month on the bas ling in the year 2018. Although, it ha el for the appellant-claimant that the M ₹10,098.88/- per month; however, ced by learned counsel for the appell h, I find no error in the income as asse Further age of the deceased was e of accident on the basis of Aadha din, as per which age of Noordin wa dingly, the learned Tribunal has tak en father and son is of 20 years; an ed to be 60 years. As the deceased w ident, the learned Tribunal had rightly equired to be added in conformity with me Court in National Insurance C d others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. As there was only 01 claiman made a deduction of 50% toward e of the deceased. Further, keeping in ws that it was the pleaded case of ribunal that prior to the accident rist and was earning ₹20,000/- per effect was adduced by the appellant owner of any agricultural land or rdingly, the learned Tribunal, had labourer and had assessed his he basis of the Minimum Wages , it has been contended by learned the Minimum Wage at the relevant ever, no such Notification has been appellant at the time of arguments. as assessed by the learned Tribunal. ed was determined to be 60 years at Aadhar Card Mark R-1 of his son din was 44 years in the year 2018. as taken that the normal age gap and had determined the age of sed was above 60 years at the time tly held that no future prospects ty with the judgment of the Hon’ble e Company Limited vs. Pranay laimant, the learned Tribunal had owards personal expenses from the ing in view the age of the deceased, e of dent per llant d or had his ages rned vant rs at son gap e of time ects ’ble ay had the sed, RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5204 the Tribunal Heads, the consortium rites. Thus, t as compensa Annual G Rs.8000x 12 Deduction of of personal e Multiplier of in view of ag at the time of Loss of conso Loss of Estat Last Rites/Fu Total Com with intere annum 8. compensatio shown to th Award. No d cautioned by be treated as State of Ha Doc ID # 6 Shetty’, (200 should be ju source of pr case of Gen 1994 Volum 04-2024 (O&M) -5- ibunal had correctly applied multiplier , the Tribunal had awarded an amoun rtium; ₹15,000/- towards loss of estat Thus, the learned Tribunal had grante pensation to the appellant-claimant in l Gross Income 0x 12 ₹96,000/- tion of 50% on account nal expenses ₹48,000/- (96 lier of 9 to be applied of age of the deceased ime of death ₹48,000 x 9 = f consortium ₹40,000/- f Estate ₹15,000/- ites/Funeral Expenses ₹15,000/- Compensation along interest @ 7% per ₹5,02,000/- From the above facts, it is cle nsation has been awarded to the ap to this Court that would merit inter . No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a ned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, th ated as a windfall or a source of profit Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir K # 64043 and Divisional Controller (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that th be just and reasonable, it should n of profit but at the same time it shou General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Su olume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Su ltiplier of 9. Under the Conventional mount of ₹40,000/- towards loss of f estate; and ₹15,000/- towards last granted total amount of ₹5,02,000/- in following manner: - (96000-48000). 0 x 9 = ₹4,32,000/- (432000+40000+15000+15000) is clear that a very just and fair the appellant. Nothing has been it interference with the impugned ct is a beneficial legislation yet, as urt, the same cannot be allowed to profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ir Kaur & Others, Law Finder oller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva that the amount of compensation ould neither be a bonanza nor a it should not be a pittance. In the . Susamma Thomas & Others, ble Supreme Court has held that onal s of last RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5204 misplaced sy factor for de 9. that merits dismissed. 10. 23.03.2026 rishu 04-2024 (O&M) -6- ced sympathy, generosity and benevo for determining the compensation. In view of the discussion above erits interference with the impug . Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable enevolence cannot be the guiding above, I find no ground is made out impugned Award. The appeal is any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No out l is RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.