IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

220 FAO-3527-2018(O&M)

Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Surinder Kumar & Another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Satnam Singh (since deceased) through LRs & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-12382-CII-2018 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 290 days in re-filing the appeal.

The only reason cited in the application for not filing the present appeal within limitation is in Para 2, which reads as follows:-

“2. That the above mentioned appeal was earlier filed on 03.06.2016, but the case was returned with some objections raised by the registry on same date i.e. 03.06.2016. However, the case filed has got mixed up and same was located on yesterday, because it was mixed with some admitted cases. Hence the delay of 290 days has occurred in re-filing the appeal.”

The said averments of the applicant/appellant are vague and general, and do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate and extraordinary delay of 290 days in re-filing the present appeal. Present application accordingly stands dismissed CM-12383-CII-2018 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 344 days in filing the appeal.

The only reason cited in the application for not filing the present appeal within limitation is in Para 2, which reads as follows:-

“2. That the appellants are poor persons and having no source of income could not manage the requisite expenses to file the appeal within limitation and thus the delay occurred.”

The said averments of the applicant/appellant are vague and general, and do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate and extraordinary delay of 344 days in filing the present appeal. Present application accordingly stands dismissed MAIN CASE Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 03.11.2015 passed in MAC Case No.155 dated 20.05.2014 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The two claimants are the 45-year-old husband and 18-year-old son of deceased Sheetal Sharma, who was 40 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Sheetal Sharma had died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.10.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.PB- 03Y-5644 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. Nothing has been granted by way of future prospects. Multiplier of 17 should have been applied instead of 15. Loss of consortium is liable to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Funeral expenses should be Rs.1,50,000/-; and loss of love and affection should be Rs.2,00,000/-. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned Award be modified.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no error; and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf