1 2026:CGHC:27479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 114 of 2026 1 - Karishma Tandiya W/o Late Choldas Tandiya, Aged About 26 Years R/o Vill. Pandariya, P.S. Samnapur, P.O. Margaon, District Dindaori (M.P.) 2 - Parvati W/o Late Mohan Aged About 59 Years R/o Vill. Pandariya, P.S. Samnapur, P.O. Margaon, District Dindaori (M.P.) 3 - Ku. Tamanna, Aged- 6 Months, D/o Late Choldas Tandiya, Minor Through Legal Guardian/ Mother Appellant No. 1, R/o Vill. Pandariya, P.S. Samnapur, P.O. Margaon, District Dindaori (M.P.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Guddu Veen S/o Lallan Veen, Through Purvanchal Transport, Rawabhata, P.S.- Khamtarayi, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)...........(Rider Of Vehicle Motorcycle No. M.P.-52-MC-4991) 2 - Vinay Kumar Manikpuri, R/o Vill. Mohgaon, Saleghori, P.S. Samnapur, Dist. Dindaori (M.P.).............(Owner Of Vehicle Motorcycle No. M.P.-52-MC-4991) 3 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Mandal No.2) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Address- Behind Jeevan Bima Karyalay Pandri- Raipur, P.S.- Pandri, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)...........(Insurer Of Vehicle Motorcycle No. M.P.-52-MC-4991) ... Respondent(s) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.06 14:50:18 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Sunder Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None though notice has been served For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 03/07/2026 1. Heard Heard on I.A. No.01/2026, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 2. The appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 17.10.2023 passed by the 14th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.75/2020, whereby the claim petition preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of Choladas Tandiya in a motor vehicle accident, has been dismissed. 3. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition primarily on the ground that the deceased, Choladas Tandiya, himself was riding the alleged offending motorcycle at the time of the accident and, therefore, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was not maintainable. 4. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 704 days. 3 5. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the claimants were duly represented before the Tribunal through a learned counsel. The award was passed on 17.10.2023. However, no steps were taken by the claimants to prefer the present appeal within the period prescribed under law. 6. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been pleaded that the appellants are economically weak persons residing in Village Pandariya and that there is no adult male member in the family. It has further been averred that they had entrusted the case papers to a local person for filing the appeal before this Court. According to the appellants, after the lapse of considerable time, upon making enquiries regarding the status of the case, they came to know that no appeal had been filed. 7. The explanation furnished by the appellants does not inspire confidence. Except for making a general statement that the papers were handed over to a local person, no particulars have been furnished regarding the circumstances under which the matter remained unattended for nearly two years. The appellants have also failed to explain what prevented them from making timely enquiries regarding the filing of the appeal. It is, thus, evident, that the appellants remained inactive for a period of 704 days, which clearly reflects a lack of due diligence in pursuing the case. Given the substantial delay of 704 days, 4 the appellants have not provided sufficient justification for the inaction. 8. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H. Guruswamy & Ors. vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs reported in (2025) 1 SCR 764 held that 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 5 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 the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of litigant for an indefinite period of time. 9. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of H. Guruswamy (supra) and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants have not explained the delay properly and satisfactorily. Hence, I.A. No.01/2026 deserves to be and is, hereby, rejected. 10. Consequently, the appeal, being barred by limitation, also stands dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai