1 2026:CGHC:1568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 60 of 2020 1. Ramdhani Singh S/o Shri Rambilash Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Chhote Ashok Nagar, Gudiyari Raipur, Police Station Gudiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Urmila Devi Singh W/o Ramdhani Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Chhote Ashok Nagar, Gudiyari Raipur, Police Station Gudiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Rupesh Singh S/o Ramdhani Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Chhote Ashok Nagar, Gudiyari Raipur, Police Station Gudiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Satish Kumar Bhoi S/o Ganesh Bhoi Aged About 38 Years Hanuman Nagar, Lakhenagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. O.D.-14 D-9853), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Narayan Kumar Khetan S/o Rampal Khetan Aged About 50 Years R/o Plot No. L. L. 26, East Floor, Civil Township, Raurkela Sundargarh Odisa. Through Shri Pankaj Khetan S/o Shyamsundar Khetan, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ganjpara Mahasamund, M/s Ranisati Paper Mart Ganjpara, Near Ashirvad Lodge Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. O. D.-14 D-9853), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Pujari Complex, Fourth Floor, Pachapedi Naka Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Haiwa Truck No. O.D.-14 D- 9853), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate Insurance Company Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.01 .2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.12 17:22:04 +0530 2 2. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 46/2015 dated 09.12.2016, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% on account of death of Karnesh Singh with delay of 1004 days. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants would argue that award was passed on 09.12.2016. The claimants are resident of distant village of District Mahasamund, therefore, they could not prefer appeal within limitation. He would submit that the claimants applied for certified copy of award on 30.11.2019, which was delivered on 06.12.2019, and thereafter, appeal was preferred on 12.12.2019. He would submit that the claimants have explained delay part properly. He would pray to condone the delay. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He would contend that the claimants failed to explain cause of delay properly and there is inordinate delay of 1004 days in filing appeal. He would submit that application (I.A. No. 01) deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay. 6. In the application, it is stated that award was passed on 09.12.2016 and appeal could not be preferred within period of limitation. The claimants are resident of distant village of Mahasamund district. It is a case where the award was passed in presence of the claimants. They were aware of the fact that an amount of Rs. 4,82,000/- has been granted, but they did not take any steps to prefer appeal within period of limitation. The only reason assigned with regard to delay of 1004 days is that the 3 claimants are resident of remote village of Mahasamund and they have had no knowledge of limitation. In my opinion, the claimants failed to explain the cause of delay properly. 7. 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 4 justice’ cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of 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.” 8. 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 5 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 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.” 9. 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. 10. Considering inordinate delay of 1004 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