IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 240 CM-13647-CII-2025; CM-13648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-2717-2013 Date of Decision.: 09.04.2026 Manju …..Applicant/Appellant Vs. Raj Kumar and others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Vani Singh, Advocate and Ms. Pree Singh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-13647-CII-2025; CM-13648-CII-2025 The main appeal, i.e., FAO-2717-2013, was inially dismissed in default for want of prosecuon vide order dated 27.09.2024. The present applicaons have been moved seeking restoraon of the appeal along with condonaon of delay of 260 days in filing the restoraon applicaon. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have stated that they have no objecon to the allowance of these applicaons. 3. In view of the reasons assigned in the applicaons, coupled NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-13647-CII-2025; CM-13648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-2717-2013 with the ‘no objecon’ from the opposite side, this Court finds sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 260 days in filing the restoraon applicaon is condoned. Consequently, the applicaon for restoraon is allowed, the order dated 27.09.2024 is recalled, and the appeal is restored to its original number. Main Case 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant– claimant assailing the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, whereby her applicaon seeking recall of the earlier order dated 08.11.2001, closing the evidence and dismissing the claim peon, was declined. 5. A perusal of the record reveals that a claim peon under Secon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was instuted on 04.11.1999 by Smt. Bhunda Devi along with Manju (minor), seeking compensaon on account of the death of Ram Dia. Claimants were mother and daughter of the deceased. The said claim peon came to be dismissed on 08.11.2001 on account of failure of the claimants to lead evidence to establish that the death of the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 6. Subsequently, the present appellant—Manju, who was claimant No.2 in the original peon, filed an applicaon seeking recall of the said order, along with a prayer for affording an opportunity to adduce evidence and to have the claim peon adjudicated on merits. The learned Tribunal dismissed the said applicaon vide impugned order dated 17.08.2012. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that at the me of death of her father, the appellant was a minor and was residing with her mother Smt. Kamla Devi, who had already obtained a decree of Page No. 2 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-13647-CII-2025; CM-13648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-2717-2013 divorce from the deceased on 11.11.1993. It is argued that the claim peon was pursued by her grandmother, who failed to effecvely prosecute the case, resulng in dismissal of the claim for want of evidence. It is thus urged that aFer aGaining majority, the appellant sought recall of the dismissal order to enable adjudicaon on merits. 8. However, when queried by this Court regarding the date of birth of the appellant, learned counsel fairly conceded that no specific material has been placed on record to establish the same. Reliance has been placed on a divorce decree dated 11.11.1993, wherein it was menoned that the daughter of Kamla Devi was about 8 years of age in the year 1992. Proceeding on this basis, it can reasonably be inferred that the appellant was born around 1984 and would have aGained majority in or about the year 2002. 9. Even if such inference is accepted, it is evident that although the claim peon was dismissed in 2001, when the appellant was sll a minor, she aGained majority in 2002 but failed to take any steps for a considerable period thereaFer. The applicaon for recall came to be filed only in the year 2006, i.e., aFer an unexplained delay of approximately four years from the date she allegedly aGained majority. 10. The law is well-seGled that while courts adopt a liberal approach in maGers concerning condonaon of delay and restoraon, parcularly in beneficial legislaon like the Motor Vehicles Act, the party seeking such relief must nevertheless show “sufficient cause” for the delay and bona fide conduct. 11. In the present case, the following aspects assume significance: • The original claim peon was dismissed aFer grant of mulple effecve opportunies to the claimants to lead evidence. Page No. 3 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-13647-CII-2025; CM-13648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-2717-2013 • The appellant has failed to place on record any cogent material establishing her exact date of birth or the precise date on which she aGained majority. • Even assuming that she aGained majority in 2002, no explanaon whatsoever has been furnished for the delay in approaching the Tribunal ll 2006. • The explanaon offered is vague and lacks supporng material, thereby failing to inspire confidence. 12. It is equally seGled that limitaon does not cease to apply merely because the applicant was earlier a minor, as upon aGaining majority, the applicant is expected to act with due diligence within a reasonable me. Inordinate and unexplained delay defeats equity and dis- entles a party from discreonary relief. 13. Further, recall of a final order cannot be claimed as a maGer of right. It is a discreonary relief, to be exercised sparingly and only when sufficient cause is shown. Where the applicant has been negligent or lacks bona fides, such indulgence cannot be granted. 14. The learned Tribunal, while dismissing the applicaon, has meculously examined the record and has rightly concluded that: • adequate opportunies had already been granted to the claimants; • no illegality or procedural irregularity was commiGed in closing the evidence; and • the applicant failed to jusfy the delay or establish sufficient cause for recall. 15. This Court finds itself in complete agreement with the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal. Page No. 4 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-13647-CII-2025; CM-13648-CII-2025 in/and FAO-2717-2013 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any case warranng interference. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 09, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 5 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document