IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:30.01.2026 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …..Appellant Vs.

Charanjit Kaur and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Varun Mi(cid:16)al, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Naib Singh lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 19.10.2023. His widow and children filed a claim pe))on under Sec)on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensa)on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, a0er apprecia)ng the pleadings and evidence, vide award dated 08.04.2025, allowed compensa)on to the tune of ₹13,43,144/-, payable jointly and severally by all the three respondents, along with interest.

2. Aggrieved against the said award, it is the insurer of the offending vehicle, which has preferred the present appeal.

3. The appeal is accompanied by an applica)on bearing CM-1553- CII-2025 under Sec)on 5 of the Limita)on Act, seeking condona)on of delay of 200 days in filing the appeal.

4. In the applica)on, it is pleaded that a0er obtaining the cer)fied copy of the award, legal advice was rendered on 18.04.2025 to challenge the award on the ground of contributory negligence. The file was therea0er marked to the counsel. However, on account of incomplete record, the counsel is stated to have sent repeated reminders. Ul)mately, the file was supplied only on 30.10.2025, wherea0er an opinion was given to challenge the award. The competent authority approved filing of the appeal on 18.11.2025. It is further pleaded that the counsel could not prepare the appeal immediately as his mother had undergone certain surgeries. On these premises, it is asserted that the delay of 200 days is uninten)onal. The applica)on is supported by an affidavit of Gursharan Singh, Administra)ve Officer (Legal) of the appellant-company.

5. A careful perusal of the applica)on itself, however, reveals that the legal advice to file the appeal was admi(cid:16)edly available as early as 18.04.2025, yet the complete record was not supplied to the counsel )ll 30.10.2025. The delay of more than six months in forwarding the record has remained unexplained except for vague asser)ons. The explana)on offered discloses a clear case of negligence, inac)on and lackadaisical approach on the part of the officials of the appellant-company.

6. It is well se(cid:16)led that internal administra)ve lapses, casual approach and procedural red-tape cannot cons)tute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Sec)on 5 of the Limita)on Act. In the absence of a bona fide and cogent explana)on covering the en)re period of delay, the appellant is not en)tled to the discre)onary relief of condona)on.

7. Accordingly, the applica)on seeking condona)on of delay of

200 days is dismissed.

8. Ordinarily, dismissal of the applica)on under Sec)on 5 of the Limita)on Act would entail dismissal of the appeal as barred by limita)on. However, even if the appeal is examined on merits, this Court substance therein.

9. The sole conten)on raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased himself contributed to the occurrence of the accident and that the learned Tribunal erred in not holding the deceased guilty of contributory negligence.

10. A perusal of the award shows that the learned Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the manner of accident. As per the pleadings and evidence, the deceased Naib Singh was driving truck No. PB-03-AP-0629. Owing to a puncture, he had parked the truck on the extreme le0 side of the road and was in the process of changing the tyre. At that )me, the offending truck came at a high speed, being driven rashly and negligently, struck against Naib Singh, and the front tyre of the offending vehicle ran over him, as a result of which he was crushed and died at the spot.

11. Though a plea of contributory negligence was taken in the wri(cid:16)en statement, the award