IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. APPEAL No. 61 of 2017

DINESH

Versus

BHARAT SINGH RAWAT AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Ms. Shivangi Soni- learned Counsel for appellant.

Shri Dhruv Agarwal- learned Counsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance

Company.

ORDER him physically disabled, mentally weak, and unemployed. The appellant further claims that due to financial hardship resulting from his condition, he was unable to arrange for the court fees and expenses required to file the appeal within the prescribed period. The appellant, therefore, seeks condonation of the delay, contending that it was not caused by deliberate inaction.

Heard on IA No. 1087 of 2017, an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the instant miscellaneous

appeal.

2. The appellant has filed the present miscellaneous appeal under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the award dated 13.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Morena, in Claim Case No. 36/2015. The appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation amount. It is submitted that the award was passed on 13.07.2015, and the appeal was required to be filed within 90 days, i.e., by 11.10.2015. However, the appellant has filed the appeal only on 10.01.2017, with a delay of 457 days (as per the office note). The appellant contends that the delay is due to serious injuries sustained in the accident, which rendered

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the appellant had already received compensation of ₹1,43,000/- with 7% annual interest on 13.07.2015, which was granted by the Claims Tribunal. The Insurance Company contests the appellant’s claim that he was unable to file the appeal due to financial constraints, arguing that the appellant’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period is not due to any valid or sufficient cause. The Insurance Company further disputes the appellant’s claim of permanent disability, stating that it was not proven before the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the Insurance Company prays for the dismissal of both the application for condonation of delay as well as the miscellaneous appeal on the grounds of delay and lack of merit.

4. Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows this Court to condone delay if it is satisfied that the delay was caused due to a "sufficient cause." In the present case, the appellant claims that his inability to file the appeal within the prescribed period was due to physical disability, mental impairment, and the inability to arrange the necessary court fees and expenses due to financial constraints. While the appellant has presented these grounds for delay, it is pertinent to note that no concrete or convincing evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the claim that the appellant’s permanent disability, mental state, or lack of funds were the sole or substantial reasons for the delay.

5. The appellant’s claim of being rendered physically disabled and unemployed is contested by the Insurance Company, which filed cross- objections in the shape of IA No. 1256 of 2020 under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Insurance Company points out that the award passed by Claims Tribunal had already provided adequate compensation to the appellant. In the absence of strong and verifiable evidence supporting the appellant’s medical condition, the delay of 457 days in filing the appeal cannot be considered sufficiently explained. Moreover, the appellant’s assertion that he could not arrange the required court fees due to lack of funds appears somewhat inconsistent with the fact that the appellant had received compensation from the Claims Tribunal. While it is understood that financial difficulties may arise due to health conditions, the appellant’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed time without providing sufficient and verifiable proof of his inability to d