IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 154 CM-18212-CII-2025 in/and FAO-5412-2025 Date of Decision : 20.07.2026 Aasiya and Others …..Appellants Vs. Sahid and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the applicants/appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is a claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of the compensa&on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. The claim pe&&on arose out of a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 05.02.2021, wherein Aash Mohammad son of Rujdar, lost his life on account of the rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registra&on No. RJ-02- GB-5897. His widow and five sons ins&tuted a pe&&on under Sec&on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensa&on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. Upon apprecia&on of the evidence, the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Vide award dated 18.11.2023, compensa&on of ₹5,63,000/- along with interest was awarded in favour of the claimants. Although the insurer was directed to sa&sfy the award, it was granted recovery rights against the insured. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.07.21 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-18212-CII-2025 in/and FAO-5412-2025 3. The present appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement of the compensa&on. Since the appeal has been ins&tuted a?er a delay of 561 days, the appellants have also filed CM No.18212-CII-2025 under Sec&on 5 of the Limita&on Act seeking condona&on thereof. 4. It has been pleaded that the appellants are illiterate persons and were unaware of the legal remedy available to them. It is further averred that a?er the death of Aash Mohammad, the family was facing severe financial hardship. According to the appellants, they subsequently requested some persons to ini&ate legal proceedings and applied for a cer&fied copy of the award on 22.05.2025, which was made available on 27.05.2025. Therea?er, they approached the counsel, who had represented them before the Tribunal, but the case file was allegedly misplaced. A?er the file was traced, they engaged counsel at Chandigarh and eventually filed the present appeal. It is, thus, contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor inten&onal but occurred due to circumstances beyond their control. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has been heard at length. 5. Having given thoughCul considera&on to the submissions advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have failed to disclose any "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Sec&on 5 of the Limita&on Act so as to warrant condona&on of the enormous delay of 561 days. 6. It is no doubt true that while considering applica&ons for condona&on of delay in maFers arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act, Courts ordinarily adopt a liberal approach so that substan&al jus&ce is not defeated on technical considera&ons. At the same &me, the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be construed so liberally as to render the law of limita&on o&ose. The applicant must establish that despite exercising due diligence, he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from approaching the Court within the prescribed period. Inordinate delay cannot be condoned merely on vague or general asser&ons Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.07.21 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-18212-CII-2025 in/and FAO-5412-2025 unsupported by any convincing explana&on. 7. Examined in the light of the aforesaid principles, the explana&on furnished by the appellants does not inspire confidence. The award was pronounced on 18.11.2023, when the appellants were admiFedly represented by a counsel before the Tribunal. Once they were duly represented, the plea that they were unaware of the legal remedy or the period of limita&on cannot, by itself, cons&tute a sufficient explana&on. A li&gant represented through counsel is ordinarily presumed to have access to legal advice regarding the remedies available in law. 8. More importantly, the appellants admiFedly applied for the cer&fied copy of the award only on 22.05.2025, nearly one year and six months a?er the award had been pronounced. The applica&on is conspicuously silent as to what prevented them from taking even this elementary step during the intervening period. The prolonged inac&on remains wholly unexplained. 9. The further plea that the counsel misplaced the case file is equally vague and unsupported by any material. Neither the date on which the counsel was allegedly approached nor the period during which the file remained untraceable has been disclosed. Such bald asser&ons, bere? of par&culars, cannot cons&tute sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay. 10. The plea regarding financial hardship is equally unpersuasive. The deceased was about 60 years of age, and apart from his widow, the claimants include five major sons aged between 18 to 36 years. Except making a general averment, no material has been placed on record to reveal that any excep&onal circumstance existed, which rendered them incapable of pursuing the legal remedy within the prescribed period. Mere hardship or illiteracy, without anything more, cannot explain complete inac&on extending over several months. 11. The cumula&ve effect of the aforesaid circumstances unmistakably demonstrates that the appellants remained indolent and failed to act with Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.07.21 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-18212-CII-2025 in/and FAO-5412-2025 reasonable diligence. The explana&on furnished neither covers the en&re period of delay nor discloses any bona fide circumstances which prevented them from approaching this Court within limita&on. The delay, therefore, cannot be said to be supported by "sufficient cause" as contemplated under Sec&on 5 of the Limita&on Act. 12. Consequently, CM No.18212-CII-2025 seeking condona&on of delay of 561 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the accompanying appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limita&on, leaving the par&es to bear their own costs. Pending miscellaneous applica&on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE July 20, 2026 Nee&ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.07.21 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document