IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH ON THE 2^nd OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1204 of 2016 NANDKISHOR AND OTHERS Versus LUCKY @ LAXMAN SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjeev Tiwari - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER The present matter pertains to a miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Award dated 30.01.2016 passed by Second Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dabra, Gwalior (M.P.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.25/2014.

2. The appellants seeks condonation of delay in filing the present appeal by way of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (1.A. No. 36/2017). It is submitted that the delay has occurred on account of bona fide reasons. The delay of 206 days in filing the miscellaneous appeal occurred due to the appellant's bona fide lack of knowledge about the award dated 30.01.2016, as the previously engaged advocate failed to inform the applicant about its passing. The appellant came to know about the award only on 19.11.2016 and immediately thereafter took prompt steps to file the appeal on 21.11.2016. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the delay is condoned. In the interest of substantial justice and considering that the appeal is for enhancement of compensation, the delay deserves to be condoned.

3. Counsel for the respondent No.3 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 present case, although the appellants have sought to explain the delay of

206 days on the ground that he was not informed about the passing of the award by the previously engaged advocate, the explanation furnished does not satisfactorily account for the entire period of delay. Except for a bald assertion regarding lack of knowledge of the award, no cogent material has been placed on record to establish that the appellants acted with due diligence after the award dated 30.01.2016. The plea of non-

communication by the advocate, in the absence of supporting material, cannot by itself constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellants were required to remain vigilant about the progress of his case, which they failed to do. The delay appears to have occurred du