##PAGE1##

FAO-5204-2024 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

113 FAO-5204-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 23.03.2026

Nabli .…Appellant

Versus

Mubarik and others ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Nafeesh Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-19630-CII-2024

1. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 469 days in filing the

accompanying appeal.

2. The only reason given for condonation of 469 days delay in

filing the appeal is as under:-

“2. That the appellant is very poor lady and she was only solely dependent income of deceased, and after the death of deceased (husband of appellant) life of the applicant’s has completely shattered due to untimely death of her husband, the applicant became depended on her relatives In such like circumstances, it is bit difficult for her to arrange fee etc. to engage counsel to file appeal for enhancement, and now after arranging funds, the applicant engaged a lawyer for filing of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, then applicant approached the undersigned, accordingly appeal has been prepared. Secondly, she was not aware about the technicalities of limitation period for filing the present appeal. Thereafter, somehow after arranging money, the appellant approached the undersigned counsel for filing the

RISHU KATARIA

2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5204-2024 (O&M) -2-

present appeal before this Hon’ble High Court. In this process, the delay of 469 days occurred in filing the appeal.”

3. The said reason is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 469 days in filing present appeal. 4. 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-appellant. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant for condonation of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonation of such an inordinate delay would tantamount to declaring the law of limitation

obsolete/redundant, without any justification.

5. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate

delay of 469 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.

FAO-5204-2024

1. The appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount of ₹5,02,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short-‘the learned Tribunal) vide impugned Award dated 13.04.2023, passed in petition bearing MACP No. 409 dated 18.08.2018/13.05.2022 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The sole claimant is the widow of

deceased-Budhi who was 60 years old at the time of accident.

RISHU KATARIA

2026.03.25 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

FAO-5204-2024 (O&M) -3-

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Budhi, had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 17.07.2018 at 10:00 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-05- AS-4518 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) by respondent No.1- Mubarik; owned by respondent No. 2-Irfan Khan; and insured by respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. All respondents were

held jointly and severally