IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.12.2025 Mufeed @ Mufid and another ...Appellants Versus Shokat and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Salman Ahmed, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

This is a claimants’ appeal directed against the award dated

06.01.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh.

2. Sarif, a four-year-old child, lost his life in a motor vehicular ac- cident, which occurred on 25.03.2016, allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registra6on No. RJ-05-SP-8604. His parents filed a claim pe66on under Sec6on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensa6on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. A>er due contest, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim pe66on vide award dated 06.01.2023, as claimants failed to establish involvement of alleged offending vehicle in the accident.

3. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal has been filed. Along with the appeal, an applica6on bearing CM No.25390-CII-2025 under Sec- 6on 5 of the Limita6on Act, 1963, has been moved seeking condona6on of a delay of 946 days in filing the appeal.

4. In the applica6on, it has been averred that owing to the death of their minor son, the appellants were mentally shaBered and also suffered financial difficul6es. It is further pleaded that due to paucity of funds and lack of awareness regarding the period of limita6on, the appeal I attest to the accuracyc aonudld not be filed within 6me. It is contended that the delay was neither in-

ten6onal nor deliberate. The applica6on is supported by an affidavit of ap-

pellant No.1, namely Mufid.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has been heard. However, this Court finds no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 946 days in filing the appeal.

6. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred in March, 2016 and the claim pe66on was contested by the appellants before the Tribunal with the assistance of counsel, as is evident from the award itself. Once the appellants were duly represented by an advocate before the learned Tribunal, the plea of ignorance regarding the period of limita6on is wholly untenable. SeBled law is that ignorance of law or limita6on cannot be a ground for condona6on of delay, par6cularly when the li6gant was repres-

ented by counsel.

7. The explana6on offered regarding mental trauma and financial loss is also vague and unsupported by any material par6culars. The appel- lants have failed to demonstrate as to how the death of a four-year-old child resulted in financial loss to such an extent that it prevented them from approaching the appellate Court for nearly three years beyond the prescribed period of limita6on. Mere bald asser6ons, without any cogent explana6on covering the en6re period of delay, do not cons6tute “suffi-

cient cause” within the meaning of Sec6on 5 of the Limita6on Act.

8. It is trite law that while a liberal approach may be adopted in considering applica6ons for condona6on of delay, such liberality cannot be extended to cases of gross, unexplained and inordinate delay. The appel- lants were required to explain the delay day-by-day, or at least provide a plausible and convincing explana6on for the en6re dura6on, which they have failed to do.

9. In view of the above, this Court finds no jus6fica6on whatso-

YOGESH MEHTA ever to condone the huge delay of 946 days. Consequently, the applica6on for condona6on of delay is dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the appeal itself stands dismissed as being barred by limita6on.

All other pending miscellaneous applica6ons, if any, also stand disposed of.

15.12.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE Yogesh