Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4678
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
ANGOORI AND ORS. – Appellant
Versus
SANJAY AND ORS. – Respondent
FAO-4753-2022 (O&M)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ram Pal Verma
For the Respondents:
Condonation of inordinate delay requires a cogent, day-to-day explanation; furthermore, motor accident compensation must be 'just' and reasonable, based on proven income or minimum wages, and not treated as a windfall.
Headnote:The case involves an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and an appeal for enhancement of compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants sought enhancement of an award of Rs. 4,27,000/- granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat, following the death of a 65-year-old individual in a motor vehicle accident. The court found the explanation for a 1050-day delay insufficient and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to be just and fair. The court addressed whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and whether the assessment of income and personal expense deductions were correct. The court reasoned that each day's delay must be explained in a mathematical manner and that in the absence of proof of income, reliance on minimum wage notifications is appropriate. Furthermore, it held that where dependency is not proved, a 50% deduction for personal expenses is justified. the present Appeal is hereby dismissed on merits, as well as on grounds of delay.
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-15011-CII-2022
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal.
The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellants in the abovesaid application for condonation of 1050 days delay in filing the appeal is as under:-
“2. That there is a delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal. The delay is not intentional but is beyond the control of the appellants. The appellants were not aware about the passing of the award. When the appellants went to her Ld. Counsel then they came to know that the case already been decided. Then the appellants applied for the certified copy of the award. Due to death of her husband, the appellant No.1 and their other children have mentally disturbed and they were not in a position to file an appeal against the impugned award.
Moreover, the appellants are very poor person. Due to lack of money they could not file appeal against the impugned award in time. The appellants could not arrange the money in time to file the present appeal. After taking the awarded money which was awarded by the Ld. Tribunal then the appellants reached at Chandigarh on 26.09.2022 and engaged the counsel for filing the appeal and the appeal is being filed on 28.09.2022. Due to the above mentioned reasons the delay has occurred in filing the appeal.”
The said reason is vague and does not constitute sufÏcient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 1050 days in filing the present appeal.
It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666, wherein it is held that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicants for condonation of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonation of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification.
As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 1050 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.
FAO-4753-2022 (O&M)
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,27,000/- awarded by the ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 14.08.2019 passed in MACP Case No. 123 dated 20.02.2018 filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter “the Act”). The 4 claimants are the 63-year-old widow; 37-year-old son; 26-year-old son; and 28-year-old son of the deceased Azad Singh, who was 65 years old at the time of accident.
Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased- Azad Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 06.02.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of an Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No. HR-69C- 5010 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The Tribunal awarded above said compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. Liability to pay compensation amount was fixed upon respondent No.3-Insurance Company alongwith recovery rights against respondents No.1 and 2 as respondent No.1 had plied 8-10 passengers in the offending vehicle; whereas the seating capacity was only 4.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement by submitÝng that income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side. It is submitted that appellants have duly proven that
