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

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1240 of 2016 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD THR Versus GOVARDHAN SHARMA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Girish Kumar- Advocate for respondent No.1.

ORDER The present matter pertains to a miscellaneous appeal under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Award dated 15.05.2014 passed by Second Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Guna (M.P.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.25/2013.

2. The appellant seek condonation of delay in filing the present appeal by way of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (I.A. No. 5381/2016). It is submitted that the delay has occurred on account of bona fide reasons. The delay has occurred as the appellant bona fide and diligently pursued the remedy of review by filing a review application before the Subordinate Tribunal within limitation, which remained pending and was dismissed only on 15-10-2016. The appellant acted in good faith with a genuine belief that the review application would be allowed, thereby obviating the necessity of filing an appeal before this Hon’ble Court. Immediately after dismissal of the review application, the appellant applied for and obtained the certified copy without delay and took prompt steps for filing the appeal. The subsequent delay was due to unavoidable administrative and procedural formalities, including obtaining legal opinion, departmental approval, and compliance with the mandatory deposit under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the appellant and is therefore liable to be condoned in the interest of justice. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the delay in filing the present appeal be condoned in the interest of justice.

3. Counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the application for condonation of delay on the grounds that the appellant has failed to explain the delay adequately. Appellant was 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.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

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. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that though the appellant has pleaded that the delay occurred due to bona fide pursuit of the review application and subsequent administrative formalities, the explanation furnished does not satisfactorily account for the entire period of delay of 2 years, 3 months and 17 days. Mere pendency of the review application cannot auto