1 2025:CGHC:54430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 114 of 2021 1. Rajesh Dewangan S/o Late Arjun Lal Dewangan Aged About 38 Years R/o Nagoikhar Darri Basti, Police Station Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Suresh Dewangan S/o Lage Arjun Lal Dewangan Aged About 36 Years R/o Nagoikhar Darri Basti, Police Station Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Mahendra Dewangan S/o Late Arjun Lal Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/o Nagoikhar Darri Basti, Police Station Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Suresh Kumar Sahu S/o Ram Lakhan Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Birgahani, Pisaud, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Swept Car Bearing Registration No. C. G. 11 A. B.- 0309), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2. Primnet Global Limited K/ P. I. L. Champa District Janjgir-Champa (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Swept Car Bearing Registration No. C. G. 11 A. B.- 0309), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. The National Insurance Company Through Branch Manager, Office Kosabadi, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Swept Car Bearing Registration No. C. G. 11 A. B.- 0309), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 2/ : Mr. Vaibhav Kartikeya Agrawal, Advocate Owner For Respondent No. 3/ : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate Insurance Company For Respondents No. 1 : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.11.11 14:13:36 +0530 2 07.11 .2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2021, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 12/2009 dated 17.09.2010 with delay of 3707 days. 3. Mr. Utkarsh Patel, counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 17.09.2010. He would further submit that the appellants were not aware of the law of limitation to prefer an appeal. He would also submit that the appellants did not contact their counsel and when they approach him, he advised to prefer an appeal, and thereafter, this appeal was preferred. He would contend that due to Covid-19 outburst, they could not prefer appeal at the earlier point of time. He would pray to condone the delay. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that there is in ordinate delay of 3707 days and same has not been explained properly. It is also argued that sufficient reasons have not been assigned; therefore, application(I.A. No. 01 of 2021) deserves to be rejected. 5. I have learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay. 6. The appellants have stated in the application for condonation of delay that they were not of about the law of limitation to prefer miscellaneous appeal. They further took a ground that they approached their counsel after long time, who advised them to prefer appeal. The next ground is that on account of Covid-19 outburst and lock-down, they could not prefer appeal. 3 The reasons assigned by the appellants are not satisfactory. Admittedly, the award was passed on 17.09.2010, and this appeal was preferred on 11.02.2021. There was Covid-19 outburst in the year 2020, and thus, for a long 10 years, the appellant did not approach their counsel or make any attempt to prefer an appeal. 7. The appellants have not specified the dates when they approached their counsel, when they obtained certified copy of award and when it was delivered. The appellants must provide a day by day explanation for delay in filing appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to various judgments 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 while dealing with issue of limitation in paras 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, which are reproduced herein-below:- “19. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors, A.I.R. 1935 PC 85, it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. 20. In this connection, a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors, 2014 (4) SCALE 50, wherein while observing, as above, this Court further laid down that if some person has obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion. 21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,[2011] 3 SCR 217 : (2011) 4 SCC 363, where the High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court 4 held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice- oriented approach’ and ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. 22. It has also been settled vide State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 1927, that the merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [2013] 8 SCR 227 : (2013) 14 SCC 81, this Court held that the 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. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.” 9. In para 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) summarized the judgments passed in the above stated decisions and the same is reproduced herein-below:- “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 litigation by forfeiting the 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 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to 5 be 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 but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (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 such as, where 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; (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.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) further held that the phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice-oriented approach’ and ‘cause for the advancement of substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 11. Considering in ordinate delay of 3707 days and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to allow the application for condonation of delay, accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2021 is hereby rejected. Consequently, appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant