1 2025:CGHC:51627 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 413 of 2024 1 - Smt. Lalita Bai W/o Late Ganga Prasad Aged About 31 Years Caste of - Gond, R/o Jemara, Police Station - Pali, Tehsil - Pali, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Preeti D/o Late Ganga Prasad Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Mother - Smt. Lalita Bai, W/o Late Ganga Prasad, Caste of - Gond, R/o Jemara, Police Station - Pali, Tehsil - Pali, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dayaram S/o Bir Singh Aged About 65 Years Caste of - Gond, R/o Jemara, Police Station - Pali, Tehsil - Pali, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Ind Kunwar W/o Dayaram Aged About 62 Years Caste of - Gond, R/o Jemara, Police Station - Pali, Tehsil - Pali, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Kalyani D/o Late Ganga Prasad Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Mother - Smt. Lalita Bia, W/o Late Ganga Prasad. Caste of - Gond, R/o Jemara, Police Station - Pali, Tehsil - Pali, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Ravi Bharti S/o Late Gond Bharti Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kadari, Police Station - Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manish Sharma S/o Ram Sumer Sharma R/o L.I.G. 86, Sharda Vihar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - New India Inurance Company Ltd Through - Branch Manager, office - Sada Complex, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 For Appellants : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.3 : : None though served. Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 16/10/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay. 2. The appellants have filed this appeal against awards dated 01.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora of Additional Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba in Claim Case No. 46/2018, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 3. The award was passed on 01.11.2019, whereas this appeal has been preferred on 20.02.2024 and there is delay of 1475 days in filing the instant appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the award was passed on 01.11.2019 and due to financial contraints and family problem, the appellants could not prefer appeal within limitation. He would contend that the appellants were under impression that award would be challenged by filling an appeal by the local counsel, therefore, they did not approach their counsel to prefer appeal. He would further contend that the appellants had no knowledge of law of limitation and 3 legal proceedings as they are illiterate villagers. He would pray to condone the delay. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellants. She would submit that there is huge delay (1475 days) in filing the instant appeal and delay part has not properly been explained by the appellants. She would pray that application (I.A. No.1) deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application (I.A. No.1). 7. In the application (I.A. No.1), the appellants have stated that the impugned award was passed on 01.11.2019 and they have prima-facie good case on merits. It is further pleaded that on account of financial constraints and family problems, they could not prefer appeal, but they have not elaborated the problems suffered by the family. It is also pleaded that they were in impression that the appeal would be filed by the local counsel but this ground can not be accepted. In paragraph No.5 & 6 of the application (I.A. No.1), the appellants have taken U-turn that they have no knowledge about law of limitation & legal proceedings. Thus, the appellants have taken contradictory stands for not filing appeal within limitation. 8. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Others vs. The Special Deputy 4 Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 : 2024 4 SCR 241 : 2024 INSC 286 dealt with the object of the law of limitation. In para 10 & 11, the object and import of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act were considered and it was observed thus:- “10. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced herein-below: 3. Bar of limitation. - (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. 11. Though Section 3 of the Act mentions about suit, appeal and application but since in this case we are concerned with appeal, we would hereinafter be mentioning about the appeal only in context with the limitation, it being barred by time, if at all, and if the delay in its filing is liable to be condoned.” 9. The Hon’ble Court referred to various judgments in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) 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 5 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 held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should 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 no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.” 6 10. 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 to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to 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 7 (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 been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.” 11. In para 30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that condonation of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants 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. Para 30 is reproduced herein-below:- “30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons 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 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 been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra).” 12. 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 8 matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the appellants could not explain the inordinate delay of 1475 days properly in the application moved in this regard. 14. Accordingly, I.A. No.1, the application for condonation of delay, is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal, being barred by limitation, also stands dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim