FAO-997-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 Smt. Sayra and another Vinod Kumar and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. enhancement of compensation of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, learned Tribunal’ bearing MACT Case No. filed under Section 166 claimants are the about 20 years of age at the time of accident. 2. basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Talim on 13.01.2010 registration No. as ‘the offending vehicle’) respondent No. 3 is the Transferee Owner 2019 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Smt. Sayra and another Versus Vinod Kumar and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Vishvajeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. NIDHI GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been filed by the enhancement of compensation of ₹3,50,000/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal Tribunal’) vide Award dated 22.07.2014 MACT Case No. RBT-95 of 2012 dated 10.12.2012/21.01.2013 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claimants are the parents of the deceased years of age at the time of accident. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that Talim, had died in a motor vehicular accident that took place 13.01.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of registration No.HNL-4956 by respondent No. the offending vehicle’); which was owned by respondent No. respondent No. 3 is the Transferee Owner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-997-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 .…Appellants ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Vishvajeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking 000/- awarded by the learned (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 22.07.2014 passed in claim petition 95 of 2012 dated 10.12.2012/21.01.2013 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 02 parents of the deceased -Talim, who was stated to be years of age at the time of accident. are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that in a motor vehicular accident that took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to owned by respondent No. 2; and respondent No. 3 is the Transferee Owner. Learned Tribunal claimants seeking awarded by the learned passed in claim petition , who was stated to be RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-997-2019 (O&M) awarded compensation as above along with interest @ from the date of filing the claim petition till actual 3. present appeal along with an application bearing CM under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of of 1555 days in filing the 4. 5. inordinate and accompanying appeal is that deceased do not understanding the complexities of law and are not aware that they have remedy of filing the appeal against the award and were also not aware about the period of limit 6. condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of the appeal. 7. to be explained in a mathematical manner which applicant-appellants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the Moreover, condonation of the accompanying appeal limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. 2019 (O&M) -2- awarded compensation as above along with interest @ om the date of filing the claim petition till actual Being aggrieved, the applicant present appeal along with an application bearing CM under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of days in filing the accompanying appeal. Heard. The only ground cited in the application for condon inordinate and extraordinary delay of 1555 days accompanying appeal is that ‘the appellants who are parents of the do not understanding the complexities of law and are not aware that they have remedy of filing the appeal against the award and were also not aware about the period of limitation in filing the appeal’. The said reason does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of appeal. It is well-settled proposition of law that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which appellants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant-appellants for condonation of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the , condonation of such an inordinate accompanying appeal would tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 6% per annum om the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. Being aggrieved, the applicant-appellants have filed the present appeal along with an application bearing CM-2977-CII-2019, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of inordinate delay accompanying appeal. The only ground cited in the application for condoning delay of 1555 days in filing the ‘the appellants who are parents of the do not understanding the complexities of law and are not aware that they have remedy of filing the appeal against the award and were ation in filing the appeal’. e said reason does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of 1555 days in filing settled proposition of law that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the appellants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been for condonation of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying appeal. such an inordinate/extraordinary delay in filing would tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. The explanation the 2019, in filing the ‘the appellants who are parents of the do not understanding the complexities of law and are not aware that they have remedy of filing the appeal against the award and were days in filing settled proposition of law that each day's delay has has not been done by the appellants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been for condonation of such an in filing would tantamount to declaring the law of The explanation RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-997-2019 (O&M) furnished by the appellants show utmost casualness. 8. handmaid of Justice and cannot be ignored/reduce of paper by giving it the complete go litigant to pursue his cas Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. Supreme Court in The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Law Finder Doc Id # 2542 recently held as under: 2019 (O&M) -3- furnished by the appellants show that the matter has been pursued w utmost casualness. The Law of Limitation is enacted with a purpose, as a handmaid of Justice and cannot be ignored/reduce of paper by giving it the complete go-by. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Law Finder Doc Id # 2542 recently held as under:- “26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litig right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section construed in a strict sense whereas Section construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors su there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; that the matter has been pursued with of Limitation is enacted with a purpose, as a handmaid of Justice and cannot be ignored/reduced to an ineffective piece by. It is the bounden duty of every e diligently; and it is also the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. The Hon’ble Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Law Finder Doc Id # 2542600, has On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5has to be In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3of the Limitation Act; Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause for the delay in filing the appeal; ith of Limitation is enacted with a purpose, as a to an ineffective piece by. It is the bounden duty of every this Hon’ble Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and others vs. has On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it Law of limitation is based upon public policy that ation by forfeiting the A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be has to be has to be In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal oriented approach or cause of but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient ch as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-997-2019 (O&M) 9. the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons for condonation of 10. bearing CM filing the accompanying appeal is 11. in filing the main appeal bearing FAO merits, therefore, no separate order is required to be pas appeal and the same also 12. 05.05.2025 rishu 2019 (O&M) -4- (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.” It is my considered view and the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons for condonation of such delay does not constitute sufficient cause. In view of the discussion made above, bearing CM-2977-CII-2019, for condonation of filing the accompanying appeal is dismissed. Since, the application for condonation of delay of 1555 days in filing the main appeal bearing FAO- therefore, no separate order is required to be pas appeal and the same also resultantly stands Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the (Emphasis added) keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons cited by the appellants not constitute sufficient cause. discussion made above, the present application 2019, for condonation of delay of 1555 days in dismissed. Since, the application for condonation of delay of 1555 days -997-2019, was dismissed on therefore, no separate order is required to be passed in the main stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Merits of the case are not required to be considered in Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the keeping in mind the totality of appellants the present application delay of 1555 days in Since, the application for condonation of delay of 1555 days on sed in the main RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.