IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.10.2025 Bala and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Lakhwinder Singh and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-4945-CII-2020 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 327 days in filing the appeal.

2. The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellants in the abovesaid application for condonation of 327 days delay in filing the appeal is as under: -

“2. That appellant No. 1 is a poor and helpless lady, who lost her husband in the unfortunate accident. The appellant No. 1 has no independent source of income and is leading her life in misery and penury along with her two minor children i.e.

appellants No. 2 and 3.”

3. The above cited reason is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 327 days in filing the present appeal. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reliance may also be placed upon 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.

4. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 327 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.

FAO-1603-2020 (O&M)

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,83,235/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 29.10.2018 passed in MACP Case No. 17 dated 23.02.2017 filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 3 claimants are the 36-year-old widow; 16-year-old daughter; and 12-year- old son of the deceased Mushtaq Khan, who was 36 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased- Mushtaq Khan had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 02.09.2016 at about 05:15 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of a PRTC Bus bearing registration No.PB- 11-BU-0915 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; and owned by respondent No.2. The Tribunal awarded the above compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum. Both respondents were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as Rs.3,000/-p.m. Interest has also been awarded on the lower side as only 7% p.a.; whereas the same should be 12% p.a. Even deduction is on the higher side and deserves to be decreased. He accordingly prays that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be modified by enhancing compensation.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard ld. Counsel and perused the case file in detail.

5. Perusal of the record shows that the pleaded case of the appellants was that the deceased was a labourer and earning Rs.3,000/- p.m.; that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was spent on his last rites. Accordingly, Claim Petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.30 lakhs. The Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as ₹3000 per month, even though the appellants produced no proof of income. Age of deceased was determined to be about 36 years on the basis of Ration Card issued on 10.11.2010 wherein his age was mentioned to be 30 years. As such, on date of accident i.e. 02.09.2016, deceased was 36 years old. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had added 40% towards future prospects; and applied multiplier of 15. As there were three claimants, deduction of 1/3rd was made towards personal expenses. Ld. Tribunal had further awarded compensati