JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-26536-CII-2025

1. Prayer in this application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is for restoration of the main appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 02.12.2025.

2. Heard.

3. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the main appeal is ordered to be restored at its original number and position.

4. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the main appeal is taken up on Board today itself for disposal.

CM-6570-CII-2020

1. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 437 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellants in para 2 of the application seeking condonation of delay of 437 days is: “That the appellants had approached the counsel for filing the present appeal. However, they were not having complete case and were asked to bring complete record which took some time. The said delay is bonafide and unintentional.”

3. The said reason is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 437 days in filing the present appeal.

4. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 437 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.

FAO-2384-2020 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.11,64,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 01.08.2018 passed in MACT Case No. 563 dated 18.04.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The two claimants are the parents of the deceased Sandeep Singh, who was 22 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased-Sandeep Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 13.03.2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of Activa Scooter bearing registration No.PB-23W- 0822) (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The Tribunal awarded the above compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. All the respondents were held liable to pay the said compensation.

3. The only ground on which learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation is that nothing has been awarded by way of consortium to the appellants. He accordingly prays that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be modified/enhanced.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

5. The case as pleaded by the appellants in the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal as recorded in para 2 of the impugned Award reads as follows:-

“2. Briefly the case as set up by the claimants in the claim petition is that claimant is mother, while claimant No. 2 is father of deceased Sandeep Singh son of Balvir Singh. It has been averred that on 13.03.2017 the deceased Sandeep Singh and Mandeep Singh were going on the Activa Scooter bearing registration No. PB-23W-0822 which was being driven by Mandeep Singh respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner and Sandeep Singh was pillion rider of the Activa Scooter in question towards village Khubh. At about 1.00 PM when they reached near bridge canal (sua) after crossing Chatarpur, then suddenly one stray dog has appeared in front of the Activa Scooter No. PB-23W-0822. The Activa Scooter bearing No. PB-23W-0822 was driven by respondent No. 1 at a high speed so he could not control the Activa Scooter No. PB-23W-0822 and on account of sudden braking, as a result of which