HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 297 of 2024 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. Delay Condonation Application. 1. Heard learned counsel for the defendant/appellants. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.3.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Basti with a delay of 3186 days. 3. Learned Tribunal has passed the order dated 18.3.2015 and right to recover has been given to the Insurance Company. The appellants/opposite parties had appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed their respective written statement. Thereafter, learned Tribunal after adducing the evidence by the parties found breach of condition of the Insurance Policy. The alleged tractor was insured for agricultural purpose, but that was used for commercial purposes. Even DW-1 who was driver of the said Tractor has deposed before the learned Tribunal that he was waiting at the place of accident for any customer. Learned Tribunal has held that the word 'customer' has been used in commercial sense and it could not be considered in the sense of use of agricultural purposes. At the time of alleged accident, there was sand in the trolley of the tractor which was used for commercial purposes for sale and purchase of sand. 4. The appellants/owner was having full and complete knowledge and they have duly contested before the learned Tribunal, hence it could not be considered that they had not the proper knowledge of the impugned award dated 18.3.2015. Neither there is any due diligence nor any reasonable, proper and plausible explanation for the delay has been given. 5. No person could be permitted to take advantage of his own wilful and deliberate negligence. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been provided to condone the delay in the matter where the aggrieved party has failed to appear before the competent forum within the stipulated period of limitation, in spite of his due diligence. The due diligence is absolutely missing in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Mahendra Pratap Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shailendra Kumar Pandey Ram Pratap Since Deceased And 7 Others .....Appellant(s) Smt Bhagdei And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. From perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that learned Tribunal has held that the appellants/opposite parties had filed their written statement before the learned Tribunal and thus, it is apparent that the appellants were appeared before the learned Tribunal in the claim and they were having knowledge of the same. 7. It has been held by the Supreme Court in D. Gopinathan Pillai versus State of Kerala, (2007) 2 SCC 322, that in matters relating to arbitration awards, an application for setting aside the award filed with a delay of 3320 days, without any sufficient and satisfactory explanation for such delay, is not sustainable. The delay cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient and reasonable cause. 8. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 79 ALL LR 647, that where there is a delay of more than four years in filing an appeal and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is filed for condonation of delay, the same cannot be allowed in the absence of sufficient cause. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a serious error in condoning such inordinate delay by ignoring the judicially accepted parameters governing the exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 9. It is held by the Supreme Court in Sitaram Ramcharan Etc. vs M.N. Nagarshana And Ors, AIR 1960 SC 260, that it cannot be disputed that in dealing which the question of condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party has to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed time, and this has always been understood to mean that the explanation has to cover the whole of the period of delay. 10. The Supreme Court in Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Versus Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, 2001 (44) ALR 577, made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay;- "In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach." 11. It is held by this Court in paras 5 and 6 of the decision in Sita Ram Versus Sri Dhar, 2006 (24) LCD 1239, that:- "5....the application given for condonation of delay, 15 days after expiry of the period of limitation, it was not mentioned as to what specific work kept the appellant engaged for which reason he could not apply for restoration of appeal. A mere cursory statement that the appellant remained busy in this school work cannot be considered sufficient reason for condonation of delay it cannot, therefore, be said that the Presiding Officer was wrong in dismissing the appellant's application. FAFOD No. 297 of 2024 2 6. Previously Courts did show lenience and latitude in dealing with applications for adjournments and condonation of delay. It is high time a changed perspective and attitude is adopted, since the Courts are already overburdened with cases resulting in inordinate delay in disposal of cases. Those days of condonation of dalliance and delay should now be over and in cases where no sufficient and proper reason is assigned for delay. the Court must adopt the stern attitude and refuse relief. That will also help in transmitting a message that the Court will no more be indulgent and parties beware." 12. The appeal has been preferred before this Court after a delay of 3186 days, without showing any due diligence or any reasonable and sufficient cause. This is an inordinate delay. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no sufficient ground exists for condonation of delay. 14. There is neither any sufficient nor reasonable cause explaining the huge and inordinate delay of 3186 days. The explanation furnished is neither reasonable nor plausible. 15. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. (Order on Appeal) 16. Since, the delay condonation application is rejected, consequently, the appeal is also hereby dismissed. May 12, 2026 sfa/ FAFOD No. 297 of 2024 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad