Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Ganeshram Sen – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Toppo – Respondent
MAC No. 355 of 2021
For the Appellant: Arjun Lal Singroul
For the Respondent No. 3: Anil Kumar Gulati
The court emphasized strict adherence to limitation laws, indicating that ignorance of legal procedures does not justify condoning significant delays in appeal filings.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3(1) and Section 5 - Appeal - Delay in filing - Application for condonation of 3219 days delay filed by the claimant is rejected. The appellant's claim of ignorance regarding legal procedures was deemed insufficient. Strict adherence to limitation laws emphasized, underscoring the necessity of timely appeals. (Paras 9-14)
(B) Delay - No sympathy towards illiteracy or hardship can override statutory limitations; delay must be adequately justified. Courts cannot condone the delay merely based on equitable grounds. (Paras 19-23)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a barber, sustained severe injuries including the amputation of a leg due to a vehicular accident caused by a driver in a negligent manner. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,18,722/- as compensation with interest at 6% p.a.
Findings of Court:
The delay was substantial and not convincingly justified, leading to rejection of the appeal.
Issues: The court addressed the justification for a lengthy delay in filing the appeal and the necessity of fulfilling statutory requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the principle that the law of limitation must be strictly observed, with reiteration of past judgments on this provision.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant seeks compensation for accident injuries. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. discussion on limitation and conditions for condonation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's reinforcement of limitation law adherence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
For Appellant : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board
26-06-2025
1) Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2) The claimant has filed this appeal assailing the award dated
21.02.2011 passed in Claim Case No. 47/2010 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby compensation of Rs. 1,18,722/- has been awarded with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
3) The facts of the present case are that on 05.04.2010 at about 06:30 p.m., the offending vehicle–Commander bearing registration No. CG– 15–B–1204 which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed appellant, who was working as a Barber. The appellant sustained injuries on various parts of body and suffered amputation of left leg.
4) The learned Tribunal after appreciating documentary and oral evidence awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,18,722/- with interest @
6% p.a. to the claimant.
5) With regard to the application for condonation of delay, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that there is a delay of 3219 days in filing the instant appeal. He would contend that the appellant is an illiterate person having no knowledge about legal procedure for filing the appeal and he was bonafidely unaware of the law of limitation. He prays to condone the delay.
6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that there is an inordinate delay of 3219 days in filing the instant appeal, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delay.
7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
8) Admittedly, the award was passed on 21.02.2011 and this appeal was preferred on 28.06.2021. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has stated that he was not aware of the proceedings and the law of limitation. A perusal of the application moved by the appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act would show that there is delay of 3219 days in filing the instant appeal and sufficient reasons have not been assigned in the application.
9) Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector ( LA )1 dealt with the object of the law of limitation. In para 10 & 11, the object and import of Section 3 (1) of the Limitation Act were considered and it was observed thus:-
“10. Section 3 (1) of the Limitation Act, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced herein-below:
3. Bar of limitation. - (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
11.Though Section 3 of the Act mentions about suit, appeal and application but since in this case we are concerned with appeal, we would hereinafter be mentioning about the appeal only in context with the limitation, it being barred by time, if at all, and if the delay in its filing is liable to be condoned.”
1. (2024) 4 SCR 241 ; 2024 SCCOnLine SC 513
Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) in paras 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, which are reproduced herein-below:-
“19. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh2 and Ors, it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not
