IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1026 of 2015 UDAL SINGH PARMAR Versus KAMLESH LODHI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Indra Singh Ashthana - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

ORDER The present matter pertains to a miscellaneous appeal under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Award dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Guna, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.08/2014.

3. The appellant/owner of the offending vehicle, seek condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, as per the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (IA No. 5345/2015). The delay is sought to be condoned on the grounds that the counsel engaged before the Tribunal Mr. Rakesh Patel has not informed to the appellant about the award passed by the learned Tribunal, when the notice of the execution proceedings received by the appellant, he contacted to the local counsel Mr. Rakesh Patel then he informed about the award passed against the appellant and applied for the certified copy on 24-09-2015 and the same was received on 06/10/2015 of the award thereafter the appellant came at Gwalior, and contacted his counsel. As the case came into the knowledge of the counsel, then the certified copy of the order was obtained by the counsel on 06/10/2015 and thereafter, this appeal was filed immediately on 13/10/2015, hence, delay of 226 days occurred in filing the instant appeal. Therefore, it is prayed that it was bona fide and inadvertence mistake occurred on the part of the office clerk as well as the appellant resided at Dist. Guna and the counsel could not able to contact the appellant within the stipulated time and when the applicant came to the office of the counsel the instant appeal was filed before this Hon'ble Court.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not merely procedural but are intended to prevent inordinate delay in the administration of justice. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the expression "sufficient cause" should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice, particularly in matters where the rights of parties are at stake. However, the Court also emphasized that the delay should not be condoned in a routine manner, and a party seeking condonation must demonstrate sufficient and reasonable cause. Further, in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that delay should not be condoned unless there is a reasonable explanation for the same. It was observed that in cases where an applicant fails to show that the delay was caused due to circumstances beyond their control, the courts are not bound to condone the delay.

6. Counsel for the respondent No.4- Insurance Company opposed the application for condonation of delay on the grounds that the appellants have failed to explain the delay adequately. Appellants were aware of the order passed by Claims Tribunal and subsequent legal proceedings, yet they have not acted with due diligence in filing the appeal within the prescribed period. It is further contended that the delay in filing the appeal is substantial and no valid or sufficient explanation has been provided to justify such a long delay.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

8. In the present matter, the appellant has stated that he was unaware of the Award of the Claims Tribunal and subsequent proceedings due to the negligence of his former advocate. It is further contended that he was unable to obtain the required documents, including the certified copy of the Award, due to administrative delays. While it is indeed unfortunate that the appellant was not kept properly informed, the period