1 2026:CGHC:10955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 9 of 2024 1. Sukhbai W/o Santram Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Janji, P.S. - Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2. Santram S/o Bisahuram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Janji, P.S. - Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Suraj Kumar S/o Santram Aged About 14 Years R/o Village Janji, P.S. - Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Through Legal Guardian (Father) Santram S/o Bisahuram.) 4. Daulatram S/o Santram Aged About 11 Years R/o Village Janji, P.S. - Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Through Legal Guardian (Father) Santram S/o Bisahuram.) 5. Suman Nayak D/o Santram Aged About 10 Years R/o Village Janji, P.S. - Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Through Legal Guardian (Father) Santram S/o Bisahuram.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Arun Kumar S/o Chintaram Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Ashtha Enclave Khamtari, P.S. - Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of Vehicle Dumphar No. Cg 10 C 0261) 2. The New India Insurance Co. Limited. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 3rd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Dumphar No. Cg 10 C 0261) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent No. 2/ : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Insurance Company Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 03.03.2026 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.03 14:21:06 +0530 2 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 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur passed in Claim Case No. 1006/2021 dated 24.01.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,69,632/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 3) This appeal has been preferred with delay of 231 days. 4) Mr. Rohan Kumbhare Advocate would submit that the award was passed on 24.01.2023 and this appeal has been preferred on 19.12.2023. He would contend that the claimants are poor villager and were not aware of law of limitation, therefore, he could not prefer appeal within a prescribed period of limitation. He would pray to condone the delay. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the claimants failed to explain sufficient cause in the application for condonation of delay. He would contend that the application (I.A. No. 01) deserves to be rejected. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay. 7) The claimant has taken a plea that the claimant had no knowledge of law of limitation. It is well-settled principle of law that ignorance of law is not an excuse to condone the delay. Further, the claimant has not mentioned the dates as to when he applied for certified copy of award; 3 when it was delivered and when he approached his counsel, thus, in my opinion, the claimant failed to explain the delay part properly. 8) It seems that the appellants remained inactive for period of 231 days, which suggests a lack of diligence in pursuing the case. Given the substantial delay of 231 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