##PAGE1##

(cid:1)FAO-5248-2025 (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-5248-2025 (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)

Date of decision: 05.02.2026

Anita Devi and others ...Appellants

Versus

Pardeep Kumar and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: Mr. Pradeep Chhoker, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants assailing the

award dated 29.01.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Jhajjar, confined solely to the quantum of compensa4on.

2. The claim arises out of a fatal motor vehicular accident dated

05.04.2022, in which Vijay Sharma lost his life. His widow, four minor

children and widowed mother ins4tuted a pe44on under Sec4on 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensa4on from the driver, owner and

insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal assessed the

compensa4on at ₹21,91,900/-, holding all the respondents jointly and

severally liable to pay the same along with interest.

3. The present appeal has been filed along with two applica4ons—

one seeking condona4on of delay of 116 days in filing the appeal, and the

other seeking condona4on of delay of 319 days in refiling the appeal.

4. The explana4on furnished in the applica4ons is that the

appellants were not well versed with legal provisions, were unable to contact

their counsel, and were not in a posi4on to arrange legal fees.

5. This Court has considered the applica4ons and finds no

sufficient cause to condone the delays. The award itself reveals that the

appellants were duly represented by counsel before the Tribunal. Once

1 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 05:43:02 :::

(cid:1)FAO-5248-2025 (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:1)

represented, the plea of ignorance of legal remedies is not available. There is

also no asser4on that the appellants made any effort to approach the Legal

Services Authori4es for availing free legal aid. Financial difficulty, without any

suppor4ng material and without explaining the delay in a reasonable

manner, cannot be treated as a sufficient cause.

6. The law rela4ng to condona4on of delay under Sec4on 5 of the

Limita4on Act is well se?led. Though a liberal approach is adopted,

par4cularly in cases involving substan4ve rights, the applicant must s4ll

disclose a sufficient, bona fide and reasonable explana4on covering the

en4re period of delay. Delay a?ributable to negligence, inac4on or lack of

due diligence cannot be condoned merely on sympathe4c considera4ons. In

Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC

81, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the law of limita4on is founded

on public policy and delay cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner

where negligence is apparent. Similarly, in Esha Bha’acharjee v. Managing

Commi’ee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649

the Supreme Court has cau4oned that vague and casual explana4ons lacking

bona fides do not cons4tute sufficient cause. The same principle has been

reiterated in Pundlik Jalam Patil (deceased through LRs) v. Executive

Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project and others, (2008) 17 SCC 448, and

Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh and others, (2010) 8 SCC 685.

7. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the explana4on offered by

the appellants is wholly unsa4sfactory and reflects gross negligence rather

than a bona fide inability to approach this Court within limita4on. On this

ground alone, the appeal deserves dismissal.

8. Even otherwise, this Court has examined the record on merits

and finds no substance in the appeal.

9. The only conten4on raised by learned counsel for the appellants

is that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side.

10. A perusal of the award shows that it was pleaded that the

2 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 05:43:03 :::

(cid:1)FAO-5248-2