IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 120 FAO-1211-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision.:11.05.2026 Bhole Nath and Others …..Appellants Vs. Ashwani Kumar and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Taneja, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa$on awarded vide award dated 04.04.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on account of death of Jaswant Singh, who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident dated 30.12.2010 caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. 2. The deceased was unmarried and the claim pe$$on under Sec$on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by his parents and sister. The learned Tribunal awarded compensa$on of ₹9,77,200/- along with interest, payable jointly and severally by the respondents. 3. The appeal is accompanied by an applica$on bearing CM-4569- CII-2026 filed under Sec$on 5 of the Limita$on Act seeking condona$on of delay of 2428 days i.e. more than six and a half years in filing the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that a8er passing of the award, the appellants had engaged one Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dhaniya, Advocate for filing the appeal before this Court. It is submi<ed that the said counsel expired in the year 2020 and since the appellants were residing in NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1211-2026 (O&M) the State of U<ar Pradesh, they could not contact him. It is further submi<ed that only when the appellants visited Chandigarh in the year 2026, they came to know about the death of the said counsel and consequently the appeal could not be filed within limita$on. Prayer is accordingly made for condona$on of delay on the ground that the same was neither inten$onal nor deliberate. 5. A8er hearing learned counsel for the appellants and upon perusal of the record, this Court does not find any ground to condone the enormous delay of 2428 days. 6. It is well se<led that though the expression “sufficient cause” occurring in Sec$on 5 of the Limita$on Act deserves liberal construc$on in order to advance substan$al jus$ce, yet such liberal approach cannot be extended to condone gross negligence, inac$on or lack of bona fides on the part of a li$gant. A party seeking condona$on of delay is required to furnish a plausible, cogent and sa$sfactory explana$on covering the en$re period of delay. 7. In the present case, even as per the own averments made in the applica$on, the appellants had allegedly engaged counsel in the year 2019 a8er passing of the award. However, therea8er no effort whatsoever was made by them for more than six years either to contact the engaged counsel or to ascertain the status of the proposed appeal. The explana$on furnished that the appellants visited Chandigarh only in the year 2026 and then came to know about the death of the counsel, rather demonstrates complete inac$on and absence of due diligence on their part. 8. Merely blaming the counsel or referring to his subsequent demise cannot by itself cons$tute sufficient cause, par$cularly when the li$gants themselves remained dormant for years together. A li$gant is expected to remain vigilant about his legal remedy and cannot absolve Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1211-2026 (O&M) himself of all responsibility a8er allegedly engaging a counsel. No material has been placed on record to show that during the en$re intervening period any a<empt was made by the appellants to contact the counsel telephonically, through correspondence, or otherwise to ascertain the status of the ma<er. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that law of limita$on is founded upon public policy and that stale claims ought not to be entertained merely on sympathe$c considera$ons. Once a valuable right has accrued to the opposite party due to expiry of limita$on, the same cannot be lightly disturbed in absence of sufficient cause supported by bona fide conduct. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have failed to furnish any sa$sfactory explana$on for the huge and inordinate delay of 2428 days in filing the appeal. The applica$on is completely devoid of merit and does not disclose any sufficient cause within the meaning of Sec$on 5 of the Limita$on Act. 11. Consequently, CM-4569-CII-2026 seeking condona$on of delay is dismissed. As a necessary corollary thereof, the appeal itself also stands dismissed being hopelessly barred by limita$on. 12. Pending miscellaneous applica$on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 11, 2026 Nee$ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.13 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document