1 2026:CGHC:30 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 695 of 2019 1. Smt. Kunti Bai Verma W/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Lohar Chowk, Police Station- Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Leena Verma D/o Rajendra Kumar Verma Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Lohar Chowk, Police Station- Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Jai Verma S/o Rajendra Verma Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Lohar Chowk, Police Station- Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Rajendra Kumar Verma (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 03-12-2025 2. Chandrahas Sahu S/o Shri Motilal Sahu R/o Village Mourikala, Police Station And Tahsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager, Through Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Pandri Raod Near Cloth Market, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate holding the brief Insurance Company of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.01 .2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01, an application for condonation of delay. 2. The claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act against an award passed by the learned 2nd Additional Judge to the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 117/2011 dated 17.01.2017, whereby the claim application moved by the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.02 16:07:55 +0530 2 claimants was dismissed. 3. The claimants have filed appeal with delay of 693 days. 4. Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate would submit that award was passed on 17.01.2017, and thereafter, the claimant approached their local counsel. He would contend that the claimants collected the necessary documents and arranged funds to prefer appeal. He would submit that the claimants were not aware of the period of limitation to prefer appeal and they have good case on merit. He would further contend that earlier MAC No. 1566 of 2017 was preferred and it was withdrawn on 17.11.2017. He would pray to condone the delay. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate appearing for Insurance Company/respondent No. 3 would submit that there is inordinate delay of 693 days in filing an appeal. He would contend that earlier MAC No. 1566 of 2017 was filed and it was dismissed as withdrawn and no liberty was reserved in favour of claimants to prefer fresh appeal, and therefore, instant appeal preferred by the claimants is not maintainable. He would contend that there is delay of 693 days and same has not properly been explained by the claimants. He would contend that earlier appeal was withdrawn on 17.11.2017 and this appeal was preferred on 27.03.2019. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application with utmost circumspection. 7. In application for condonation of delay, the claimants have not properly explained cause of delay. The fact of withdrawal of earlier MAC No. 1566 of 2017 has not been disclosed in the application for condonation of delay. MAC No. 1566 of 2017 was withdrawn on 17.11.2017 but no liberty was reserved in favour of the claimants to prefer fresh appeal, however, certified 3 copy of the award was also returned. This appeal was preferred by the claimants on 27.03.2019. In the application, the claimants have not mentioned a single date even date of award. The only reason assigned by the claimants is that after passing of award claimants approached their local counsel, collected documents and thereafter preferred appeal. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to various judgments in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 : 2024 4 SCR 241 : 2024 INSC 286 while dealing with issue of limitation 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 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 have 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 4 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 have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.” 9. 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 have 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 5 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 (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.” 10. 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 matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 11. Considering inordinate delay of 693 days and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to allow the application for condonation of delay, accordingly, I.A. No. 01 is hereby rejected. Consequently, appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant