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

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1398 of 2025 SURENDRA SINGH RANDHAVA AND OTHERS Versus SMT. MAKKHANJU RAJA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for appellants- driver and owner of offending vehicle.

Shri Rajesh Gupta- Advocate for respondent No.2- Insurance Company.

ORDER Respondent No.1 is reported to be unserved as per the office note despite the service of notice.

2. The present matter pertains to a miscellaneous appeal under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Award dated 27-01- 2022 passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 192 of 2019.

3. The appellants, driver and 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. 1196 of 2025). The delay is sought to be condoned on the grounds that the appellants were not informed of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal and that the delay of 1021 days in filing the appeal is due to the efforts made in collecting necessary documents, such as the certified copy of the Award and information related to the driving licence.

4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that they were unaware of the order dated 27-01-2022 due to improper representation by their former advocate. Furthermore, they were not informed of the Execution Case filed by the second respondent (the insurance company). The appellants assert that it was only on receiving the notice dated 12-01-2025 that they became aware of the order, and thereafter they made efforts to obtain the certified copy of the Award, which led to a delay of 1021 days in filing the appeal.

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.2- 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 appellants have stated that they were unaware of the Award of the Claims Tribunal and subsequent proceedings due to the negligence of their former advocate. They further contend that they were unable to obtain the required documents, including the certified copy of the Award and details of driving licence, due to administrative delays and the absence of the driver, who had left the job. While it is indeed unfortunate that the appellants were not kept properly informed, the period of delay of 1021 days has not been sufficient