FAO-7959 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 Parveen Shiv Kumar and CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. enhancement of compensation of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, learned Tribunal’ No. 147 of 2011 dated 16.02.2011/08.04.2011 the Motor Vehic 2. basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that appellant-claimant/Parveen accident that took place on of Three Wheeler No.1; insured by respondent No. 2 Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ per annum from realization. 7959-2017(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Shiv Kumar and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for the appellant. NIDHI GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been filed by the enhancement of compensation of ₹1,99,600/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat Tribunal’) vide Award dated 08.05.2012 147 of 2011 dated 16.02.2011/08.04.2011 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that claimant/Parveen, had sustained accident that took place on 22.02.2010 due to rash and negligent driving Three Wheeler bearing registration No. nsured by respondent No. 2-Insuranc awarded compensation as above along with interest @ per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual . IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-7959-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 .…Appellant ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for the appellant. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking 1,99,600/- awarded by the learned (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 08.05.2012 passed in Claim Petition 147 of 2011 dated 16.02.2011/08.04.2011 filed under Section 166 of Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that injuries in a motor vehicular due to rash and negligent driving bearing registration No.HR-67-2488 by respondent Insurance Company. The learned awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 7.5% the date of filing the claim petition till actual claimant seeking awarded by the learned of RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7959 3. appeal along with 26345-CII- and 440 days in re 4. application bearing CM Limitation Act, 1963, was issued vide order dated 03.05.2023. Pursuant thereto, office report dated 04.10.2023, indicates that notices to the respondents could not be issued for want of process 5. 6. CII-2017 for condon in filing the accompanying appeal is that appeal vide Dairy No. 0860359 dated 23.08.2012 within limitation, but the registry raised an could not trace the file from the objection cases. The appellant enquired about the appeal then same was search appellant came to know about the above said fact regardin returning the appeal for removal objection. The clerk again searched the file in registry but could not succeed. Now, the same appeal filed fresh and in this process it becomes delay in filing 1291 days’. 7. condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of 7959-2017(O&M) -2- Being aggrieved, the applicant appeal along with 02 applications bearing CM -2017 for condonation of inordinate delay and 440 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal Perusal of the order-sheets reveals that application bearing CM-26346-CII-2017, filed under Limitation Act, 1963, was issued by a co vide order dated 03.05.2023. Pursuant thereto, office report dated 04.10.2023, indicates that notices to the respondents could not be issued for want of process-fee. Heard. The only ground cited in the application for condoning inordinate and extraordinary in filing the accompanying appeal is that appeal vide Dairy No. 0860359 dated 23.08.2012 within limitation, but the registry raised an objection and clerk of the counsel for the appellant could not trace the file from the objection cases. The appellant enquired about the appeal then same was searched appellant came to know about the above said fact regardin returning the appeal for removal objection. The clerk again searched the file in registry but could not succeed. Now, the same appeal filed fresh and in this process it becomes delay in filing 1291 days’. The said reason does not consti condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of , the applicant-appellant has filed the present bearing CM-26346-CII-2017 and CM- inordinate delay of 1291 days in filing accompanying appeal, respectively. sheets reveals that notice in the 2017, filed under Section 5 of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2023. Pursuant thereto, office report dated 04.10.2023, indicates that notices to the respondents could not be issued The only ground cited in the application bearing CM-26346- extraordinary delay of 1291 days in filing the accompanying appeal is that ‘the appellant had filed by the appeal vide Dairy No. 0860359 dated 23.08.2012 within limitation, but objection and clerk of the counsel for the appellant could not trace the file from the objection cases. The appellant enquired and clerk to the counsel or the appellant came to know about the above said fact regarding objection and returning the appeal for removal objection. The clerk again searched the file in registry but could not succeed. Now, the same appeal filed fresh and in this process it becomes delay in filing 1291 days’. The said reason does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of 1291 days in filing the present notice in the Section 5 of the ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2023. Pursuant thereto, office report dated 04.10.2023, indicates that notices to the respondents could not be issued days had filed by the appeal vide Dairy No. 0860359 dated 23.08.2012 within limitation, but objection and clerk of the counsel for the appellant could not trace the file from the objection cases. The appellant enquired and clerk to the counsel or the g objection and returning the appeal for removal objection. The clerk again searched the file in registry but could not succeed. Now, the same appeal filed fresh days in filing RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7959 the appeal. condonation of delay in refilling. 8. to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant and unexplained dela condonation of such an inordinate accompanying appeal obsolete/redundant, without any justification. by the appellants show casualness. 9. handmaid of Justice and cannot be ignored/reduce of paper by giving it the complete go litigant to pursue his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. Supreme Court in The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Law Finder Doc Id # 2542600, recently held as under: 7959-2017(O&M) -3- appeal. Same reason has been given in the application seeking condonation of delay in refilling. It is well-settled proposition of law that each to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the appellants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant-appellant for condonation of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying condonation of such an inordinate/extraordinary delay accompanying appeal would tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. by the appellants show that the matter has been pursued with utmost casualness. The Law of Limitation is enacted with a purpose, as a handmaid of Justice and cannot be ignored/reduce of paper by giving it the complete go-by. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and others vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Law Finder Doc Id # 2542600, recently held as under:- “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; Same reason has been given in the application seeking settled proposition of law that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the appellants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been for condonation of such an inordinate accompanying appeal. Moreover, /extraordinary delay in filing the would tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification. The explanation furnished that the matter has been pursued with utmost of Limitation is enacted with a purpose, as a handmaid of Justice and cannot be ignored/reduced to an ineffective piece y. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. The Hon’ble Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Law Finder Doc Id # 2542600, has On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; Same reason has been given in the application seeking day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the appellants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been for condonation of such an inordinate , in filing the would tantamount to declaring the law of limitation hed that the matter has been pursued with utmost of Limitation is enacted with a purpose, as a to an ineffective piece y. It is the bounden duty of every this Hon’ble . has On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. order/judgment. FAO-7959 7959-2017(O&M) -4- (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 construed in a strict sense whereas Section 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 cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section (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 su 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.” A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or fter a fixed period of time; The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5has to be In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal 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 3of the Limitation Act; 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 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 for the delay in filing the appeal; Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the (Emphasis added) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be has to be has to be In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal oriented approach or cause of but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of 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 ch as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due 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 Merits of the case are not required to be considered in Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7959 10. the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons for condonation of 11. bearing CM of inordinate delay accompanying appeal 12. CM-26345 filing; and 440 days in re on merits, 13. 08.05.2025 rishu 7959-2017(O&M) -5- It is my considered view and the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons for condonation of such delay does not constitute sufficient cause. In view of the discussion made above, bearing CM-26346-CII-2017 and CM-26345 inordinate delay of 1291 days in filing accompanying appeal are dismissed. Since, both the applications bearing CM 26345-CII-2017, for condonation of inordinate delay ; and 440 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal resultantly, the main appeal also Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons cited by the appellant not constitute sufficient cause. discussion made above, both the applications 26345-CII-2017, for condonation days in filing; and 440 days in re-filing the applications bearing CM-26346-CII-2017 and inordinate delay of 1291 days in accompanying appeal are dismissed main appeal also stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No keeping in mind the totality of applications for condonation filing the 2017 and days in RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.