1 2026:CGHC:10959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2376 of 2025 Vinay Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Uday Narayan Tiwari Aged About 28 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Ward No. - 37, In Front Of Gudakhu Factory, Police Station - Torwa, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of Sold Truck) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Anurag Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Vijayapuram Colony, B-50, Near Science College, Seepat Road, Police Station - Sarkanda, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant No. 1) 2 - Swati Sahu D/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Vijayapuram Colony, B-50, Near Science College, Seepat Road, Police Station - Sarkanda, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant No. 2) 3 - Balram Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Malikram Sahu, Died Through Lr's (Driver Of Sold Truck) 3.1 - Sumitra Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Balram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Darrighat, Police Station And Tahsil - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address - Near Jairam Nagar Railway Crossing, Kotmi Sonar Road, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3.2 - Simran Sahu D/o Late Shri Balram Sahu Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian (Mother) Respondent No. 3-A Sumita Sahu R/o Ward No. 6, Darrighat, Police Station And Tahsil - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address - Near Jairam Nagar Railway Crossing, Kotmi Sonar Road, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 3.3 - Khushi Sahu D/o Late Shri Balram Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian (Mother) Respondent No. 3-A Sumita Sahu R/o Ward No. 6, Darrighat, Police Station And Tahsil - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address - Near Jairam Nagar Railway Crossing, Kotmi Sonar Road, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Branch Manager Iffco Tokiyo Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Shop No. - 205, Second Floor, M.M. Silver Bhawan, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Sold Truck) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rohul Amin Memon, Advocate For Respondent No.3A : Mr. Yashkarn Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Nikita Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 03.03.2026 1) Heard on I.A. No. 1, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2) The appellant has filed this appeal assailing the award dated 02.03.2023 passed in Claim Case No. 838/2018 by the learned VIII th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby compensation of Rs.6,90,800/- has been awarded with interest @ 9% p.a. on account of death of Kusum Sahu. 3) The appellant, owner of the offending truck has preferred this appeal with delay of 880 days. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was proceeded ex parte before the learned Tribunal. He would further submit that though written statement was filed in the claim case by the appellant, but he remained ex parte on account of communication gap, therefore, he did not have knowledge of the passing of the award. He 3 would contend that after receiving execution notice on 10.09.2025, the appellant come to know that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award on 02.03.2023. He would further contend that despite best efforts, the appellant failed to file appeal within the stipulated period. He would submit that the delay caused in filing of this appeal is bona fide; thus, the delay may be condoned. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that claimants have filed this appeal with delay of 880 days and sufficient reasons have been not been explained in the application for condonation of delay, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 6) Heard. 7) Perusal of the award would show that appellant was represented through a counsel. The award was passed on 02.03.2023 but no steps were taken by the appellant to prefer appeal within prescribed period of limitation. 8) In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the appellant was unaware of passing of the impugned award but perusal of record would show that he was represented by a counsel before the learned Tribunal, thus reason assigned cannot be accepted. Also, appellant failed to explain period of delay from 02.03.2023 till 28.10.2025. 9) It seems that the appellants remained inactive for period of 880 days, which suggests a lack of diligence in pursuing the case. Given the substantial delay of 880 days, the appellants have not provided sufficient justification for the inaction. 4 10) Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H. Guruswamy & Ors. Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs.1 held courts cannot use a "liberal approach" to condone inordinate, unjustified delays caused by a party's own negligence. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below :- 13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as "liberal approach", "Justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. 16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep 1. [2025] 1 SCR 764 5 the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of litigant for an indefinite period of time. 11) Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H. Guruswamy (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the claimants have not explained the delay properly, therefore, the application for condonation of delay [I.A. No. 1] is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 12) Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nadim