1 2025:CGHC:27659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 304 of 2021 1. Chhotelal S/o Late Shri Tekram Kashyap Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kuwagaon, Post Office Dharampura, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Munni Bai W/o Shri Chhotelal Kashyap Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kuwagaon, Post Office Dharampura, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Indrajeet Singh Saluja S/o Amarjeet Singh Saluja R/o Jagmal Chowk Bilaspur Police Station Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Ram Khilawan Bareth S/o Dukhiram Bareth R/o Village Khod, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh .......(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. Cg 10 Fa 0757) 3. The United India Insurance Company Through Branch Manager, 2nd Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar, Near Amber Automobile, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh .......(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. Cg 10 Fa 0757) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25. 06.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, an application for condonation of delay. 2. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.26 16:46:08 +0530 2 Vehicles Act against an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 37/2017 dated 29.06.2018, whereby the learned tribunal passed an award of Rs. 5,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% in favor of the appellants. 3. The claimants, who are unfortunate parents of the deceased filed a claim case under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of their son, namely, Gyaneshwar @ Ganesh, who died in a motor accident on 10.02.2017 in the age of 18 years. They pleaded that the deceased was working as a carpenter and earning Rs. 3,40,000/- to 4,00,000/- per annum. As per the claim case, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG 10 FA 0757, driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the deceased. The deceased sustained injuries and during the course of treatment died. 4. The respondents filed their reply; the learned tribunal framed issues; the parties lead evidence and the learned tribunal passed an award on 29.06.2018. 5. An appeal was filed by the appellants on 14.06.2021 along with an application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 414 days in filing the appeal. The application moved by the appellants for condonation of delay states that the award was passed on 29.06.2018 but the appellants had no knowledge of the award passed by the learned tribunal and after the death of their son, their financial condition was very poor. It was also pleaded that their mental status was not stable due to the death of their son; therefore, they could not prefer the appeal within the period of limitation. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants are poor villagers, they had no knowledge of the award dated 3 29.06.2018 passed by the learned tribunal and further, their mental status was not stable, therefore, they could not approach their counsel to prefer the appeal. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Anjali Leach vs. Dharmendra @ Dhhalu passed in MAC No. 140 of 2015, wherein the delay of 2572 days was condoned on the ground that it is not expected from the uneducated villagers or agriculturists or labour class that they are acquainted with legal procedure, specifically the provision of limitation, to file an appeal, and, in such premises, their application for condonation of delay could not be thrown away. He would pray to allow the application moved by the appellants for condonation of delay. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dewangan. She would submit that there is a delay of 414 days in filing the appeal. She would further submit that the appellants have not explained the delay properly. She has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 : 2024 4 SCR 241 : 2024 INSC 286 and Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [2013] 8 SCR 227 : (2013) 14 SCC 81, wherein, it is held that the delay cannot be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. It is held that condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. It is also held that condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct 4 approach. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 9. Admittedly, an award was passed by the learned tribunal on 29.06.2018, and this appeal has been preferred on 14.06.2021. In the application moved by the appellants for condonation of delay, it is stated that they had no knowledge of the award passed by the learned tribunal. It is further pleaded that on account of insufficient funds, they could not approach their counsel to prefer the appeal and further, they were mentally disturbed on account of the death of their elder son. 10. The reasons assigned in the applications are contradictory as on one hand, it is stated that the petitioners had no knowledge of the award and on the other hand, it is pleaded that they had no sufficient funds. 11. With regard to the mental status of the appellants, they have not placed any document to substantiate their contention and there is an inordinate delay of 414 days. The delay part has not been explained properly. 12. In the matter of Basawaraj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. 13. In the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra), while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay in the cases of the Motor Vehicle Act, in para 30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not 5 been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra).” 14. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2021 is hereby rejected. Consequently, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant