FAO-1292 IN THE HIG 118 Haseen Umar Moham CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-3853-C 1. Limitation A delay of 734 2. filing the app 92-2025 (O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Versus Mohammad and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for t I GUPTA, J. CII-2025 Prayer in this application fil tion Act, 1963 read with Section 15 734 days in filing the accompanying The only reason given for cond the appeal is as under:- “3. That it is pertinen appellant/applicant belonging accident, his truck was got bad repairs and there has been a to due to which he is suffering fro on account of this accident. The file appeal against the impug passed by the learned Tribu D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1292-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.02.2026 .…Appellant ....Respondents NIDHI GUPTA te for the appellant. on filed under Section 5 of the 151 CPC is for condonation of anying appeal. condonation of 734 days delay in inent to mention that the ing to poor family and after the t badly damaged and was beyond a total loss of vehicle totally loss g from extreme financial hardship . The appellant/claimants wants to mpugned award that 12.10.2022 ribunal immediately but due to the n of y in he he nd ss ip to 22 to RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1292 3. cause to con 4. explained. In the Hon’ble Shivamma ( 2025 INSC 2777666, w mathematica No cogent r applicant for filing the a inordinate d obsolete/redu 5. delay of 734 FAO-1292 1. seeking enha by the lear Jagadhri (fo 12.10.2022 92-2025 (O&M) -2- financial constraint he could expenses for filing appeal with this Hon’ble Court.” The said reason is vague and to condone extraordinary delay of 734 It is cardinal principle of law th ned. In this regard, reference may be n’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appea mma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.202 wherein it is held that each day’s matical manner which has not been do gent reason or plausible explanation ant for condonation of such an inordin the accompanying appeal. Moreov nate delay would be tantamount to de te/redundant, without any justification As such, no ground is made o 734 days. Present application accord 1292-2025 Present appeal has been file g enhancement of the compensation am e learned Motor Accident Claims (for short-‘the learned Tribunal) 2022, passed in petition bearing MAC ould not arrange the necessary within the prescribed time before e and does not constitute sufficient 734 days in filing present appeal. that delay of each day has to be ay be made to a recent judgment of ppeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as ataka Housing Board and others, 09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # s delay has to be explained in a een done by the applicant-appellant. anation has been furnished by the inordinate and unexplained delay in oreover, condonation of such an t to declaring the law of limitation ication. made out for condoning inordinate accordingly stands dismissed. n filed by the appellant-claimant tion amount of ₹2,82,920/- awarded aims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at unal) vide impugned Award dated MACP Case No. 466 of 2018 dated ry re ient o be t of d as ers, d # in a lant. the y in an tion nate rded r at ated ated RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1292 28.11.2018 Act, 1988. No. HR-58 2. basis of plea truck bearin motor vehic negligent (hereinafter Umar Moha respondent compensatio date of filing and 2 were severally. 3. truck seeks the date of a Irshad, who took place o received fata fated truck w damaged bey accident date taken by the 92-2025 (O&M) -3- 2018/17.01.2019, filed under Section 988. The sole claimant is the owner 58-A-7884 (hereinafter referred to a Brief facts of the case are that of pleadings and evidence adduced bef bearing registration No. HR-58-A- vehicular accident that took place on ent driving of Truck bearing regi nafter referred to as ‘the offending v Mohammad; owned by respondent dent No. 3-Insurance Company nsation as above along with interest f filing the claim petition till actual re were held liable to pay the amount Learned counsel for the appella seeks enhancement of compensation a te of accident the ill-fated truck was , who was working as a driver of the s lace on 19.06.2017, Mohammad Irs ed fatal injuries, as a result of which h truck which is in the ownership of the ed beyond repairs and there has been nt dated 19.6.2017. This fact is also e by the Surveyor. As such, the appellan ection 166 of the Motor Vehicles owner of truck bearing registration ed to as ‘the ill-fated truck). re that the learned Tribunal on the ed before it concluded that ill-fated -7884 had been damaged in a lace on 19.06.2017 due to rash and g registration No. UP-17-T-9152 ding vehicle’) by respondent No.1- ndent No. 2-Allu; and insured by pany. Ld. Tribunal awarded terest @ 7.5% per annum from the tual realization. Respondents No. 1 mount of compensation jointly and ppellant/ claimant/owner of ill-fated ation amount by submitting that on was being driven by Mohammad the said truck. In the accident that ad Irshad, driver of the truck had hich he died. It is stated that the ill- of the appellant-claimant has been been total loss of the vehicle in the also evident from the photographs ppellant had suffered loss of earning icles tion the ated in a and by rded the o. 1 and ated t on mad that had een the aphs ning RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1292 of ₹50,00,00 appellant had Tribunal has 4. that the ill- appellant ha PW-4 and e present appe above. 5. heard learne the submissi 6. claimed dam caused to his is stated to prove his cl Tribunal as abovesaid fa also examin Assessor wh truck No. HR As per the sa to the ill-fate 3 had charge 92-2025 (O&M) -4- ,00,000/-.The estimate of loss was a ant had duly examined witnesses to pr al has awarded meager amount of ₹2,8 Further, it is submitted by lear -fated truck was the sole source of ant had duly proved his case by step and examining other witnesses. Acco t appeal may be allowed, and the c No other argument is raised on learned counsel and perused the case f bmissions made by learned counsel for Perusal of the record shows th d damages to the tune of ₹60,61,592 to his ill-fated truck bearing registrat ed to be totally damaged in the acci his claim, the appellant-claimant had al as PW-4 and tendered his affida said facts were reiterated. The record xamined PW-3 Ashok Kumar Sood, sor who had brought Ex. P-2/Survey A No. HR-58-A-7884; and bill Ex. P-3 a he said record/Survey Assessment R fated truck was assessed to the tune charged ₹8520/- towards Survey Fe was assessed as ₹10,61,592/-. The s to prove his claim, yet the learned 2,82,920/- to the appellant. y learned counsel for the appellant urce of income of the appellant. The stepping into the witness-box as . Accordingly, it is prayed that the the compensation is enhanced as ed on behalf of the appellant. I have case file in detail. I find no merit in sel for the appellant-claimant. ws that the appellant-claimant had 61,592/-, on account of the damage gistration No. HR-58-A-7884 which e accident in question. In order to nt had appeared before the learned affidavit Ex. PW-4/A wherein the ecord reveals that the appellant had Sood, Insurance Surveyor and Loss rvey Assessment Report of ill-fated 3 at the request of the appellant. ent Report Ex. P-2, the loss caused e tune of ₹2,74,400/-. Further, PW- y Fees which was proved from the The rned llant The x as the d as ave it in had age hich r to rned the had oss ated lant. used the RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-1292 Bill Ex. P appellant ent I find no err exaggerated the ill-fated evidence. In interfere in t dismissed. 7. 25.02.2026 rishu 92-2025 (O&M) -5- x. P-3. In this background, the lea ant entitled to compensation of ₹2,82,9 no error in the same. Though the appe erated claims of the alleged losses cau fated truck, however, the said cla In this view of the matter, I fin re in the impugned Award. The prese ssed. Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable he learned Tribunal had held the 2,82,920/- (₹2,74,400/- + ₹8520/-). e appellant has made grandiose and ses caused to him due to damage to id claims are not backed by any , I find no ground is made out to e present appeal accordingly stands, any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the and e to any t to nds, RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.