NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 828 of 2021

1 - Bhagwat S/o Darbari Gond Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Firangipara Kota Thana Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant REKHA SINGH versus

1 - Silvant Kumar S/o Prem Sagar Rai, R/o Plot No. 7 Soni Bihar Colony Hirapur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).........(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No.

C.G.04/z.K./0436), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office Rama Trade Center First Floor Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insure Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/z.K./0436), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant/Claimant/ : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate Injured For respondent No.2/Insurance : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Company For respondent No.1 : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

11.02.2026

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2022, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Claim Case No.651 of 2014 dated 28.03.2019 whereby, the learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,22,947/-

with interest @ 6% on account of injuries sustained by the claimant.

3. The claimant has preferred this appeal with delay of 337 days.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the award was passed on 28.03.2019 and this appeal has been preferred on 16.12.2021. He would contend that the claimant was 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 claimant failed to explain sufficient cause in the application for condonation of delay. He would contend that the application (I.A. No. 01/2022) deserves to be rejected.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay with utmost circumspection.

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; when it was delivered and when he approached his counsel, thus, in my opinion, the claimant failed to explain the delay part properly.

8. Law as regards scope and jurisdiction of the Court in the matter of condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments and some judgments are as under :

(i) In the case of Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, Hon. Supreme Court in para 7 has held as under:-

“7. In construing Section 5 (of the Limitation Act) it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice.”

(