IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.: 07.04.2026 Gesan (since deceased) thr LRs and Others …..Appellants Vs.

Naseem and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

On account of the death of one Nasim in a motor vehicular accident, his widow, children and mother ins#tuted a claim pe##on under Sec#on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said claim pe##on came to be decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal, vide award dated 02.07.2022, whereby compensa#on to the tune of ₹16,15,358/- was awarded in favour of the claimants, payable jointly and severally by the respondents along with interest.

2. Dissa#sfied with the quantum of compensa#on so awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. The appeal is accompanied by an applica#on bearing No. CM-24423-CII-2025 under Sec#on 5 of the Limita#on Act for condona#on of delay of 1076 days in filing the appeal, as also another applica#on bearing No. CM-24424-CII-

2025 for condona#on of delay of 34 days in re-filing the appeal.

3. In the applica#on seeking condona#on of delay of 1076 days, it has been averred that the appellants were in a state of shock on account of the un#mely demise of Nasim and, being persons of limited financial means, they could not arrange sufficient funds to ins#tute the appeal within the prescribed period of limita#on. It is pleaded that the delay occurred in the process of arranging finances for pursuing the remedy.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has been heard and the record has been perused.

5. At the outset, it is to be no#ced that while considering an applica#on under Sec#on 5 of the Limita#on Act, the Court is required to examine whether “sufficient cause” has been made out for condona#on of delay. Although a liberal approach is generally adopted in ma>ers pertaining to compensa#on under the Motor Vehicles Act, such liberality cannot be extended to condone inordinate and unexplained delays, par#cularly where the explana#on furnished is vague, lacking in par#culars, or does not inspire confidence.

6. In the present case, the delay in filing the appeal is of 1076 days, which is substan#al and requires a cogent, convincing and properly substan#ated explana#on. The primary ground urged by the appellants is that they were in shock due to the death of Nasim. However, this explana#on does not withstand scru#ny. The accident in ques#on occurred in July, 2018, whereas the claim pe##on itself was ins#tuted therea@er and culminated in the award dated 02.07.2022. Once the appellants had already ini#ated and pursued the claim proceedings before the Tribunal, it cannot be accepted that they con#nued to remain in such a state of shock so as to prevent them from availing the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed limita#on period.

7. The second ground regarding financial constraints is equally unconvincing. The applica#on is conspicuously silent on material par#culars such as the steps taken by the appellants to arrange funds, the #me consumed in doing so, and the reasons as to why the appeal could not be filed even a@er the passing of the award within a reasonable period. It is well se>led that a bald asser#on of poverty or financial difficulty, without any suppor#ng material or specific details, cannot cons#tute sufficient cause for condona#on of an inordinate delay.

8. It is also per#nent to observe that law of limita#on, though procedural in nature, is founded on sound public policy to ensure certainty and finality in li#ga#on. The discre#onary power to condone delay cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner so as to defeat the very object of limita#on statutes. In the absence of a sa#sfactory and plausible explana#on, condona#on of such a prolonged delay would amount to rendering the statutory period of limita#on o#ose.

9. In view of th