1 2026:CGHC:10956 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1576 of 2023 1. Mathura Bai Nayak W/o Faguram Nayak Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Arjuni, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present Resident Of Railway Colony, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Suran Nayak S/o Faguram Nayak Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Arjuni, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present Resident Of Railway Colony, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Somnath Nayak S/o Faguram Nayak Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Arjuni, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present Resident Of Railway Colony, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Raghvendra Prasad Pandey S/o Bramha Prasad Pandey Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Birra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Driver And Owner Of The Vehicle Bolero Registration Number Cg 15 Ad 1348) 2. Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Upper Side Of Canera Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle Bolero Registration Number Cg 15 Ad 1348) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Mohd. Parvez Khan, Advocate For Respondent No. 2/ : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate Insurance Company SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.03 14:21:06 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 03.03.2026 1) Heard on I.A. No. 01, an application for condonation of delay. 2) This appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation assailing judgment and award passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur passed in Claim Case No. 1324/2019 dated 02.07.2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,98,618/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 3) This appeal has been preferred with delay of 341 days. 4) Mr. Parvez Khan, Advocate would submit that the claimants are poor person and in want of sufficient fund they could not prefer appeal within prescribed period of limitation. He would pray to condone the delay. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that amount of compensation was deposited with the concerned Tribunal on 27.07.2022, whereas this appeal has been preferred on 07.09.2023. He would contend that the claimants failed to explain delay part properly. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay. 7) In application for condonation of delay, it is stated that due to insufficient fund, the claimants could not prefer appeal. As informed by Mr. Pandya, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company that amount of compensation was deposited on 27.07.2022, whereas, 3 appeal was preferred on 07.09.2023 and the claimants failed to explain sufficient cause for delay. 8) It seems that the appellants remained inactive for period of 341 days, which suggests a lack of diligence in pursuing the case. Given the substantial delay of 341 days, the appellants have not provided sufficient justification for the inaction. 9) 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 1. [2025] 1 SCR 764 4 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 the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of litigant for an indefinite period of time. 10) 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. 01] is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 11) Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant