IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-24-2023(O&M)

Date of decision: 21.01.2026 Rajwati & Another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rakesh Kumar & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Arvind Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-65-CII-2023 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 163 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 delay is filing in appeal is occurred due to the fact that the appellant was not aware about the Law of Limitation and she was under the impression that delay should be stared after receiving the award”

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 163 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.13,40,200/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 15.02.2022 passed in MACP Case No.339 dated 27.05.2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The two claimants are the 42-year-old mother and 19-year-old sister of deceased Rahul, who was 23 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 Rahul had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 10.12.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of Car bearing registration No.HR-36X-1997 (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 as only Rs.8,500/- per month. It is submitted that the appellants had duly proved on record that deceased was a Graduate and was working in a Private Company and getting salary of Rs.18,000/- per month. Yet the learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as that of a daily wager.

4. It is further submitted that nothing has been granted towards filial consortium to claimant No.2/sister of the deceased. Nothing has been granted towards loss of estate. Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses. Interest should be granted @ 18% per annum. It is accordingly prayed that the Award be modified and compensation of Rs.50 lakh be awarded to the appellants.

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

6. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that prior to the accident, the deceased was working in Mussasi Company. However, claimant No.1 while appearing as PW2 in her Affidavit of Evidence (Ex.PW2/A) has admitted that deceased was working in the said Company only since 7 to 8 months prior to the accident. The claimants had further asserted that deceased was earning Rs.17-18 thousand per month. However, no documentary proof of income was produced by them. Even no employer or any other colleague of the deceased was examined to prove the alleged employment or income of the deceased. The claimants had further contended that deceased was 12^th pass and ITI diploma holder. However, no evidence to this effect was produced by them. It was in this background that the Tribunal ha