IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 113 CM-16940-CII-2025 in/and FAO-5105-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:03.12.2025 Smt. Emna and Others …..Appellants Vs. Ali Jaan and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) One Jakir lost his life in a motor vehicle accident on 15.06.2019. His parents, widow, and children filed a claim pe((on under Sec(on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa(on from the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 01.09.2023, assessed compensa(on at ₹14,60,242/-, payable jointly and severally by the respondents, along with interest. 2. Dissa(sfied with the quantum of compensa(on, the claimants filed the present appeal in August 2025. Along with the appeal, they have moved CM-16940-CII-2025 under Sec(on 5 of the Limita(on Act seeking condona(on of 629 days’ delay. 3. The explana(on furnished is that the appellants were unaware of the technicali(es of law; that they were dependent upon their counsel’s NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-16940-CII-2025 in/and FAO-5105-2025 (O&M) -2- advice; and that only in the second week of July 2025 did their counsel advise them to prefer the appeal. It is further stated that therea>er they took (me to arrange funds and approach another counsel at Nuh, resul(ng in the delay. 4. The reasons projected do not inspire confidence. The appellants were admi@edly represented by counsel before the Tribunal, as reflected in the award itself. Once the award was passed on 01.09.2023, the appellants were expected to act with reasonable diligence. A li(gant who is already in the company of legal representa(on cannot later plead complete ignorance of legal remedies or “technicali(es of law” as a ground for condona(on. 5. The plea that they contacted their counsel only in July 2025 is wholly vague and unsupported by any material. No explana(on is forthcoming for the prolonged inac(on of nearly two years between the award and the alleged consulta(on with counsel. The law is well-se@led that “sufficient cause” under Sec(on 5 of the Limita(on Act must be bona fide, reasonable, and must explain the en(re period of delay. Negligence, inac(on, or lack of diligence cannot be condoned merely on sympathe(c considera(ons. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that limita(on cannot be extended on the basis of vague asser(ons or a>erthoughts and that the Court must balance the rights accrued to the other side due to expiry of limita(on. 6. In the present case, the appellants have failed to sa(sfactorily explain even a frac(on of the 629-day delay. Their explana(on is neither plausible nor supported by any material. The delay, being inordinate and unexplained, cannot be condoned. 7. Accordingly, the applica(on under Sec(on 5 of the Limita(on Act is dismissed. As a necessary consequence, the appeal, being barred by NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-16940-CII-2025 in/and FAO-5105-2025 (O&M) -3- limita(on, also stands dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica(ons, if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE December 03, 2025 Nee(ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.04 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document