##PAGE1##

FAO-2694-2020 Page 1 of 6 (cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

132 FAO-2694-2020(O&M)

Date of decision: 02.04.2026 Mamta Rani

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Bachittar Singh & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate

for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-7007-CII-2020

This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with

Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 6825 days in filing the appeal.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the

applicant/appellant that in respect of the accident dated 12.01.1998, two Claim Petitions bearing No.126 filed by the applicant/appellant and Claim Petition No.127 dated 17.03.1998 had been filed. Both the above-said Claim Petitions were allowed by the MACT Ambala vide impugned Award dated 13.06.2001. It is submitted that the appellant being an illiterate lady was under the genuine impression that no separate appeal is required to be filed by the applicant/appellant in MACT Case No.126 of 1998. Accordingly, the appellant had not filed the present appeal. It is for this reason that delay of

6825 days has occurred in filing the present appeal.

SUNENA

2026.04.07 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(cid:1)

FAO-2694-2020 Page 2 of 6 (cid:1)

Heard.

I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the

applicant/appellant as there is an inherent contradiction in the statement made on behalf of the applicant. The only reason given for the delay of 6825 days is that the applicant was not aware that she was required to file a separate appeal against the Award dated 13.06.2001. However, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is unable to reply that if that was so, why did the applicant file a separate Claim Petition No.126 of 1999 in respect of the accident dated 12.01.1998. No explanation to this effect has been given.

Thus, the above cited reason does not constitute sufficient

cause to condone extraordinary delay of 6825 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Others” Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 decided on 12.09.2025. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay

of 6825 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed

MAIN CASE

Present appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 13.06.2001 passed in MACT Case No.126 dated 17.03.1998

SUNENA

2026.04.07 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(cid:1)

FAO-2694-2020 Page 3 of 6 (cid:1)

filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The 2 claimants are the 24-year-old son and 29-year-old daughter of deceased Sheela, who was 50 years old at the time of accident.

Present appeal has only been filed by claimant No.2.

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 the deceased Sheela had died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 12.01.1998 at about 9:30 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.OR-14-B-2969 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2, and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for payment

of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that deceased was 50 years old at the time of accident. As such, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 13. Income has