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

Date of Decision.: 09.04.2026 Manju …..Applicant/Appellant Vs.

Raj Kumar and others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Vani Singh, Advocate and Ms. Pree(cid:24) Singh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company.

Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for respondent No.5.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-13647-CII-2025; CM-13648-CII-2025 The main appeal, i.e., FAO-2717-2013, was ini(cid:24)ally dismissed in default for want of prosecu(cid:24)on vide order dated 27.09.2024. The present applica(cid:24)ons have been moved seeking restora(cid:24)on of the appeal along with condona(cid:24)on of delay of 260 days in filing the restora(cid:24)on applica(cid:24)on.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have stated that they have no objec(cid:24)on to the allowance of these applica(cid:24)ons.

3. In view of the reasons assigned in the applica(cid:24)ons, coupled with the ‘no objec(cid:24)on’ from the opposite side, this Court finds sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 260 days in filing the restora(cid:24)on applica(cid:24)on is condoned. Consequently, the applica(cid:24)on for restora(cid:24)on is allowed, the order dated 27.09.2024 is recalled, and the appeal is restored to its original number.

Main Case

4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant– claimant assailing the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, whereby her applica(cid:24)on seeking recall of the earlier order dated 08.11.2001, closing the evidence and dismissing the claim pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on, was declined.

5. A perusal of the record reveals that a claim pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on under Sec(cid:24)on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was ins(cid:24)tuted on 04.11.1999 by Smt. Bhunda Devi along with Manju (minor), seeking compensa(cid:24)on on account of the death of Ram Dia. Claimants were mother and daughter of the deceased. The said claim pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on came to be dismissed on 08.11.2001 on account of failure of the claimants to lead evidence to establish that the death of the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

6. Subsequently, the present appellant—Manju, who was claimant No.2 in the original pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on, filed an applica(cid:24)on seeking recall of the said order, along with a prayer for affording an opportunity to adduce evidence and to have the claim pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on adjudicated on merits. The learned Tribunal dismissed the said applica(cid:24)on vide impugned order dated

17.08.2012.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that at the (cid:24)me of death of her father, the appellant was a minor and was residing with her mother Smt. Kamla Devi, who had already obtained a decree of divorce from the deceased on 11.11.1993. It is argued that the claim pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on was pursued by her grandmother, who failed to effec(cid:24)vely prosecute the case, resul(cid:24)ng in dismissal of the claim for want of evidence. It is thus urged that aFer aGaining majority, the appellant sought recall of the dismissal order to enable adjudica(cid:24)on on merits.

8. However, when queried by this Court regarding the date of birth of the appellant, learned counsel fairly conceded that no specific material has been placed on record to establish the same. Reliance has been placed on a divorce decree dated 11.11.1993, wherein it was men(cid:24)oned that the daughter of Kamla Devi was about 8 years of age in the year 1992. Proceeding on this basis, it can reasonably be inferred that the appellant was born around 1984 and would have aGained majority in or about the year 2002.

9. Even if such inference is accepted, it is evident that although the claim pe(cid:24)(cid:24)on was dismissed in 2001, when the appellant was s(cid:24)ll a minor, she aGained