Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10722
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Ramin Bai – Appellant
Versus
Tikeshwar Singh – Respondent
MAC No. 670 of 2020
For the Appellant: Shri Vivek Sharma
For the Respondents: Shri Mohd. Azad Siddiqui
Strict adherence to the law of limitation is required; equitable grounds do not justify the condonation of significant delays without satisfactory explanation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Application for condonation of delay - Delay of 1509 days in filing the appeal - Applicant failed to satisfactorily explain the delay on a day-to-day basis, relying on grounds of being a poor villager - The law on limitation mandates strict adherence; mere sympathy does not justify delay. (Paras 3-12)
(B) Law of Limitation - Public policy mandates an end to litigation - Appeals must be filed within the prescribed timeframe, and the burden of proof lies with the appellant to demonstrate sufficient cause for any delay. (Paras 9-12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought enhancement of compensation post the award of Rs. 3,10,000/- by the Tribunal, following a motor vehicle accident. The delay in filing the appeal was primarily attributed to the financial constraints faced by the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself.
Issues: The key issues included whether the delay in filing the appeal was justified and whether the applicant could provide sufficient cause under the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the law of limitation is to be applied strictly and that equitable considerations cannot override statutory provisions when the delay is not adequately explained.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay under the motor vehicles act. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. opposition to condonation application based on lack of satisfactory explanation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial discretion in condoning delay must be exercised judiciously. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. final dismissal of appeal due to lack of sufficient grounds for delay. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
Order on Board
16.09.2025
1. Heard on I.A. No.1 of 2019, an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 3.11.2015, passed in Claim Case No.281 of 2014 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.3,10,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @
7.5% per annum.
3. There is a delay of 1509 days in filing the instant appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant/ claimant has stated that the award was passed on 3.11.2015. She is a poor and rustic villager and after getting amount of compensation, she repaid the loan amount taken for her treatment. Thereafter, she arranged funds in order to prefer an appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as the appellant is a poor lady residing in a rural area, she could not prefer an appeal within the period of limitation. He would pray to allow this application taking a lenient view.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the claimant has not properly explained the delay, which is 1509 days. He would contend that after passing of award by the Tribunal, amount of compensation was deposited with the concerned Tribunal and it was disbursed to the claimant. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay are not satisfactory, and the delay remains unexplained.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.
7. A perusal of the application would reveal that the claimant has not explained the delay on a day-to-day basis. She has not specified when she collected the relevant documents, when she arranged the necessary funds, or when she approached her counsel.
8. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 : 2024 4 SCR 241 : 2024 INSC 286 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.”
9. The Hon’ble Court referred to various judgments in the matter of 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 Singh and Ors. A.I.R. 1935 PC 85, 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 complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.
20. In this connec
