SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 23764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
JAGDISH CHANDER AND ANOTHER – Respondent



##PAGE1##

FAO-3513-2025 Page 1 of 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

139

Date of decision: 22.12.2025

FAO-3513-2025(O&M)

Mandeep Kumar & Others

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Jagdish Chander & Another

...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate

for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-11237-CII-2025

This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for

condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is

supported by affidavit of appellant No.1, the same is allowed subject to all

just exceptions and delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

CM-11238-CII-2025

This is an application under Rule 5(1) Chapter I Part A Vol. 5 of

the High Court Rules and orders read with Section 151 CPC for condonation

of delay of 947 days in re-filing the appeal.

The only reason given for condoning such inordinate delay is:

SUNENA

2025.12.24 16:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

FAO-3513-2025 Page 2 of 8

“2. That the applicants-appellants had filled appeal before this

Court in the month of August 2022, but the registry has raised

the some objections.

3. That after submitting the paperbook in the registry of court,

the brief has be kept with pending matters but inadvertently

was kept with the admitted matters and due to

misunderstanding the counsel has forgotten about the matter

and could not received back the paperbook from the registry

after objection.

4. That thereafter the matter was listed in the list of incomplete

matter and on 25.11.2024, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to

disposed off the appeal and ordered to consigned the file to

record room on account of non-removal of defects of the

appeal.

5. That when the counsel came to know about the matter,

moved the application for recalling the order dated 25.11.2024

with liberty to grant an opportunity to remove the defect and

vide order dated 25.04.2025, this court has granted to week's

time to remove the defects.”

The Law of Limitation is enacted with a purpose, as a

handmaid of Justice and cannot be ignored/reduced to an ineffective piece

of legislation by giving it the complete go-by. With passage of time, rights

of the parties get crystallised. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to

pursue his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty of this Court to

ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned.

It is my considered view that keeping in mind the totality of

the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons cited by the applicant

SUNENA

2025.12.24 16:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

FAO-3513-2025 Page 3 of 8

for condonation of delay, do not constitute sufficient cause. In view of

above, present application is dismissed.

FAO-3513-2025

Present appeal has been filed by claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide

Award dated 05.04.2022 passed in MACP Case No.72 dated 16.08.2021

filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”).

The 4 claimants are the husband; and three minor children of deceased

Renu Devi, who was 31 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of

pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties,

concluded that deceased Renu Devi had died due to the injuries suffered

by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 18.06.2021 due to

the involvement of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-80C-2575

(hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by

claimant/appellant No.1, owned by respondent No.1, and insured by

respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that very meagre

amount of compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is

submitted that the learned Tribunal did not consider that present trends of

SUNENA

2025.12.24 16:00

I attest to the accuracy and

i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top