FAO-3029-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 Ramandeep Kaur and others Gurpreet Singh and others CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Swarn Tiwana for the appellants. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by against the impugned award dated Accident Claims Tribunal, enhancement of compensation, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 18.08.2022, Simranjit Singh, while returning to his village Sidhupur from duty on motorcycl AP-0699, was driving on the normal speed. At about 10:00 p.m., when he reached near Marauli bye Morinda, responde negligent manner at a very high speed, came from behin motorcycle from the rear, causing him to fall on the road and sustain multiple grievous injuries. He was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Morinda, and thereafter referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO Date of Decision:0 Ramandeep Kaur and others Versus Gurpreet Singh and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate for the appellants. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by against the impugned award dated 05.10.20 Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of compensation, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of e Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 522 Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 18.08.2022, Simranjit Singh, while returning to his village Sidhupur from duty on motorcycl 0699, was driving on the left side of the road with due care and caution at a normal speed. At about 10:00 p.m., when he reached near Marauli bye Morinda, respondent No.1, driving motorcycle No. negligent manner at a very high speed, came from behin motorcycle from the rear, causing him to fall on the road and sustain multiple grievous injuries. He was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Morinda, and thereafter referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3029-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.09.2025 ...Appellants ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimant .2023 passed by the learned Motor (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of compensation, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of 522 days in filing the appeal. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 18.08.2022, Simranjit Singh, while returning to his village Sidhupur from duty on motorcycle No.PB left side of the road with due care and caution at a normal speed. At about 10:00 p.m., when he reached near Marauli bye-pass, nt No.1, driving motorcycle No.PB-49-C-6156 in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed, came from behind and hit Simranjit Singh’s motorcycle from the rear, causing him to fall on the road and sustain multiple grievous injuries. He was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Morinda, and thereafter referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries on 21.08.2022. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Respondents claimants passed by the learned Motor (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of compensation, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 18.08.2022, Simranjit PB-10- left side of the road with due care and caution at a pass, 6156 in a rash and d and hit Simranjit Singh’s motorcycle from the rear, causing him to fall on the road and sustain multiple grievous injuries. He was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Morinda, and thereafter on 21.08.2022. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.15 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-3029-2025 (O&M) No.1. The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs.19,67,000/ assessed the dependency of Rs.7500/ also granted future prospects @40%. Further, it has granted under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate as well as Rs.44,000/ towards loss of consortium. before this Court. 3. The present appeal is accompanied by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of the present appeal reasons beyond their control It is urged that after the award dated 05.10.2023 was passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants had approached counsel for filing the appeal before this Court and were under the However, they later came to know that no such appeal had been filed, which resulted in the lapse of time. It is contended that the appellants have a meritorious case, likely to succeed on merits, and therefore, deserves to be condoned rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this and others passed in FAO No. 7216 of 2017 on 27.09.2017 in filing an appeal ought to be condoned where sufficient cause is made out. said case also, the ground for seeking condonation of delay was that the counsel though promised to file the appeal before the Court, did not fulfill hi This Court while sitting in civil roster has ground of non-filing of appeal by the counsel within period of limitation has been taken for condonation of delay. In fact, it is the most common ground taken to 2025 (O&M) -2- The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs.19,67,000/ assessed the dependency of Rs.7500/- per month, applied a multiplier of 15 and ranted future prospects @40%. Further, it has granted under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate as well as Rs.44,000/ towards loss of consortium. Aggrieved against the said award, the claimants are before this Court. he present appeal is accompanied by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of the present appeal on the ground the delay of aforesaid days has reasons beyond their control and thus, the same is It is urged that after the award dated 05.10.2023 was passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants had approached counsel for filing the appeal before this Court and were under the bona fide impression that the appeal had been duly filed. However, they later came to know that no such appeal had been filed, which resulted in the lapse of time. It is contended that the appellants have a meritorious case, likely to succeed on merits, and therefore, deserves to be condoned. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment a Coordinate Bench of this Court in passed in FAO No. 7216 of 2017 on 27.09.2017 in filing an appeal ought to be condoned where sufficient cause is made out. , the ground for seeking condonation of delay was that the counsel though promised to file the appeal before the Court, did not fulfill hi This Court while sitting in civil roster has come across many cases where similar filing of appeal by the counsel within period of limitation has been taken for condonation of delay. In fact, it is the most common ground taken to The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs.19,67,000/ per month, applied a multiplier of 15 and ranted future prospects @40%. Further, it has granted Rs.16,500/- each under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate as well as Rs.44,000/ Aggrieved against the said award, the claimants are he present appeal is accompanied by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 522 days in filing on the ground the delay of aforesaid days has occurred due to and thus, the same is neither intentional nor deliberate It is urged that after the award dated 05.10.2023 was passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants had approached counsel for filing the appeal before this ression that the appeal had been duly filed. However, they later came to know that no such appeal had been filed, which resulted in the lapse of time. It is contended that the appellants have a meritorious case, likely to succeed on merits, and therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment Court in Dev Raj and others vs. Baj Singh passed in FAO No. 7216 of 2017 on 27.09.2017 to contend that delay in filing an appeal ought to be condoned where sufficient cause is made out. In the , the ground for seeking condonation of delay was that the counsel though promised to file the appeal before the Court, did not fulfill his promise. come across many cases where similar filing of appeal by the counsel within period of limitation has been taken for condonation of delay. In fact, it is the most common ground taken to The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs.19,67,000/-, per month, applied a multiplier of 15 and each under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate as well as Rs.44,000/- Aggrieved against the said award, the claimants are he present appeal is accompanied by an application filed under days in filing occurred due to neither intentional nor deliberate. It is urged that after the award dated 05.10.2023 was passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants had approached counsel for filing the appeal before this ression that the appeal had been duly filed. However, they later came to know that no such appeal had been filed, which resulted in the lapse of time. It is contended that the appellants have a meritorious in the interest of justice, the delay Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment Dev Raj and others vs. Baj Singh contend that delay In the , the ground for seeking condonation of delay was that the counsel s promise. come across many cases where similar filing of appeal by the counsel within period of limitation has been taken for condonation of delay. In fact, it is the most common ground taken to PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.15 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-3029-2025 (O&M) justify the delay occurred in filing the appeal. explanation tendered by the appellants file the appeal and that they remained under a had been filed, justify an inordinate delay of 522 days. Mere negligence or inaction on the part of the litigant or their counsel cannot be a ground to defeat the law of limitation.The law is well settled by this latin maxim subveniunt’ tha rights’. The appellants have failed to show any circumstance beyond their control which prevented them from made out for condonation of delay. approach this Court by way of appeal within the period prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred Section 173 of the Act of 1988 deals with appeals, which are reproduced as under: “173. Appeals person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, withi days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfie the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than 4. A perusal of the provi crystal clear that the High Court may entertain the appeal after expiry of the period of 90 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by 2025 (O&M) -3- justify the delay occurred in filing the appeal. explanation tendered by the appellants that they had engaged counsel file the appeal and that they remained under a in the opinion of this Court, does not constitute sufficient cause to justify an inordinate delay of 522 days. Mere negligence or inaction on the part of the litigant or their counsel cannot be a ground to defeat the law of limitation.The well settled by this latin maxim ‘vigilantibus non dormientibus jura that says ‘Law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their The appellants have failed to show any circumstance beyond their control which prevented them from filing the appeal within time. Accordingly, no case is made out for condonation of delay. It is apparent that the appellant approach this Court by way of appeal within the period prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988). The provisions of Section 173 of the Act of 1988 deals with appeals, which are reproduced as under: 173. Appeals:(1) Subject to the provisions of sub person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, withi days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfie the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than A perusal of the proviso to Section 173 crystal clear that the High Court may entertain the appeal after expiry of the period of 90 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by justify the delay occurred in filing the appeal. In the instant matter as well, the that they had engaged counsel, who did not file the appeal and that they remained under a bona fide impression that the same does not constitute sufficient cause to justify an inordinate delay of 522 days. Mere negligence or inaction on the part of the litigant or their counsel cannot be a ground to defeat the law of limitation.The ‘vigilantibus non dormientibus jura t says ‘Law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their The appellants have failed to show any circumstance beyond their control filing the appeal within time. Accordingly, no case is It is apparent that the appellants did not approach this Court by way of appeal within the period prescribed under the Motor to as the Act of 1988). The provisions of Section 173 of the Act of 1988 deals with appeals, which are reproduced as under: :(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than [one lakh] rupees.” Section 173 of the Act of 1988 makes it crystal clear that the High Court may entertain the appeal after expiry of the period of 90 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by 'sufficient cause' , the who did not impression that the same does not constitute sufficient cause to justify an inordinate delay of 522 days. Mere negligence or inaction on the part of the litigant or their counsel cannot be a ground to defeat the law of limitation.The ‘vigilantibus non dormientibus jura t says ‘Law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their The appellants have failed to show any circumstance beyond their control filing the appeal within time. Accordingly, no case is did not approach this Court by way of appeal within the period prescribed under the Motor to as the Act of 1988). The provisions of Section 173 of the Act of 1988 deals with appeals, which are reproduced as under:- ), any n ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High e thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal d that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal [one lakh] rupees.” of the Act of 1988 makes it crystal clear that the High Court may entertain the appeal after expiry of the period 'sufficient cause' PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.15 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-3029-2025 (O&M) from preferring the appeal in time. Thus, the appellant is required to satisfy that there was sufficient cause for the delay. 5. The phrase 'sufficient cause' as used in materia to Section 5 interpreted in the same way. 6. A bare perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay shows that the appellant bothered to inquire for efforts were made by the appellant have themselves appeal within the statutory limitation period. 7. The object and purpose of the statutes of limitation of a legal remedy so as to put an end to every legal remedy as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. When mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to be condoned on sympathetic grounds alone. The statutory provision of law of limitation may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Acquisition Office proposition that law for limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period o from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The 2025 (O&M) -4- from preferring the appeal in time. Thus, the appellant is required to satisfy that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The phrase 'sufficient cause' as used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and should, therefore, be interpreted in the same way. A bare perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay shows that the appellants have made only general and basic statement, without being bothered to inquire for all most two years or placing any material to show that efforts were made by the appellants to get the appeal filed in time. The appellant themselves to establish 'sufficient cause' that prevented appeal within the statutory limitation period. The object and purpose of the statutes of limitation of a legal remedy so as to put an end to every legal remedy as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. When mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to be condoned on sympathetic grounds alone. The statutory provision limitation may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Basawraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 has observed that it is a settled legal proposition that law for limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The from preferring the appeal in time. Thus, the appellant is required to satisfy that The phrase 'sufficient cause' as used in 173 of the Act of 1998 is in pari of the Limitation Act, 1963 and should, therefore, be A bare perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay shows ade only general and basic statement, without being years or placing any material to show that to get the appeal filed in time. The appellant cause' that prevented them from filing the The object and purpose of the statutes of limitation is to fix the life span of a legal remedy so as to put an end to every legal remedy as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. When mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to be condoned on sympathetic grounds alone. The statutory provision limitation may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The Hon’ble Basawraj and another Vs. Special Land has observed that it is a settled legal proposition that law for limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no f limitation on equitable grounds. A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The from preferring the appeal in time. Thus, the appellant is required to satisfy that of the Act of 1998 is in pari of the Limitation Act, 1963 and should, therefore, be A bare perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay shows ade only general and basic statement, without being years or placing any material to show that to get the appeal filed in time. The appellants from filing the is to fix the life span of a legal remedy so as to put an end to every legal remedy as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. When mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to be condoned on sympathetic grounds alone. The statutory provision limitation may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The Hon’ble Basawraj and another Vs. Special Land has observed that it is a settled legal proposition that law for limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no f limitation on equitable grounds. A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.15 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-3029-2025 (O&M) statutory provision may cause hardsh the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex, attracted in such a situation. 8. In view of by the appellant for not approaching this Court by way of instant appeal within the period of limitation is neither plausible nor convincing and thus, does not inspire the confidence of this Court 9. Consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed on the ground delay. September 09, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -5- statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal dura lex sed lex, which means “the law is hard but it is the law” stands attracted in such a situation. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the explanation given by the appellant for not approaching this Court by way of instant appeal within the period of limitation is neither plausible nor convincing and thus, does not inspire the confidence of this Court to condone the delay of Consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed on the ground (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable ip or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal which means “the law is hard but it is the law” stands the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the explanation given by the appellant for not approaching this Court by way of instant appeal within the period of limitation is neither plausible nor convincing and thus, does not inspire to condone the delay of 522 days. Consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed on the ground AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No ip or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal which means “the law is hard but it is the law” stands the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the explanation given by the appellant for not approaching this Court by way of instant appeal within the period of limitation is neither plausible nor convincing and thus, does not inspire Consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed on the ground of AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.15 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh