FAO-5248-2025 




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5248-2025  Date of decision: 05.02.2026 Anita Devi and others ...Appellants Versus Pardeep Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Pradeep Chhoker, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been filed by the claimants assailing the award dated 29.01.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar, confined solely to the quantum of compensa4on. 2. The claim arises out of a fatal motor vehicular accident dated 05.04.2022, in which Vijay Sharma lost his life. His widow, four minor children and widowed mother ins4tuted a pe44on under Sec4on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensa4on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensa4on at ₹21,91,900/-, holding all the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same along with interest. 3. The present appeal has been filed along with two applica4ons— one seeking condona4on of delay of 116 days in filing the appeal, and the other seeking condona4on of delay of 319 days in refiling the appeal. 4. The explana4on furnished in the applica4ons is that the appellants were not well versed with legal provisions, were unable to contact their counsel, and were not in a posi4on to arrange legal fees. 5. This Court has considered the applica4ons and finds no sufficient cause to condone the delays. The award itself reveals that the appellants were duly represented by counsel before the Tribunal. Once YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.06 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-5248-2025 




represented, the plea of ignorance of legal remedies is not available. There is also no asser4on that the appellants made any effort to approach the Legal Services Authori4es for availing free legal aid. Financial difficulty, without any suppor4ng material and without explaining the delay in a reasonable manner, cannot be treated as a sufficient cause. 6. The law rela4ng to condona4on of delay under Sec4on 5 of the Limita4on Act is well se?led. Though a liberal approach is adopted, par4cularly in cases involving substan4ve rights, the applicant must s4ll disclose a sufficient, bona fide and reasonable explana4on covering the en4re period of delay. Delay a?ributable to negligence, inac4on or lack of due diligence cannot be condoned merely on sympathe4c considera4ons. In Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquision Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the law of limita4on is founded on public policy and delay cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner where negligence is apparent. Similarly, in Esha Bha'acharjee v. Managing Commi'ee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Supreme Court has cau4oned that vague and casual explana4ons lacking bona fides do not cons4tute sufficient cause. The same principle has been reiterated in Pundlik Jalam Pal (deceased through LRs) v. Execuve Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project and others, (2008) 17 SCC 448, and Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh and others, (2010) 8 SCC 685. 7. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the explana4on offered by the appellants is wholly unsa4sfactory and reflects gross negligence rather than a bona fide inability to approach this Court within limita4on. On this ground alone, the appeal deserves dismissal. 8. Even otherwise, this Court has examined the record on merits and finds no substance in the appeal. 9. The only conten4on raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. 10. A perusal of the award shows that it was pleaded that the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.06 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-5248-2025 




deceased was working as an electrician at M/s Baba Haridass Motors Parts, Rewari Road, Jhajjar, earning ₹25,000/- per month. However, except for the self-serving statement of PW-1 Anita, widow of the deceased, no cogent evidence was produced. No employer or co-worker was examined; no salary cer4ficate, a?endance register, bank statement or other documentary proof was brought on record. 11. It is well se?led that though strict rules of evidence are not applicable to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are s4ll required to place reliable and cogent material on record to establish the income of the deceased. Mere oral asser4ons regarding income, unsupported by documentary or corrobora4ve evidence, cannot be accepted. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal is jus4fied in making a reasonable assessment based on minimum wages. 12. In the present case, in the absence of any reliable evidence regarding the actual income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income on the basis of minimum wages applicable at the relevant 4me. This approach is in consonance with se?led law and does not call for interference. 13. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has applied the se?led principles correctly and the assessment of compensa4on does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warran4ng interference in appellate jurisdic4on. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the applica4ons seeking condona4on of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the appeal, being barred by limita4on and otherwise devoid of merit, is also dismissed. 15. All pending miscellaneous applica4on(s), if any, stand disposed of. 05.02.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.06 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document