##PAGE1##

FAO-190-2025 Page 1 of 5 (cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

130 FAO-190-2025(O&M)

Date of decision: 09.04.2026 Doli & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Umar Farukh & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vishal Nehra, Advocate

for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-4295-CII-2026

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

Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 883 days in filing the appeal.

It is mentioned in Para 2 of the present application that:-

“2. That it is submitted that the appellants were not knowing about the appeal whereby the enhancement of compensation can be there filing the appeal and then they made up the mind to challenge the order passed by the Ld. Tribunal Court, they contacted to their counsel but in this way the limitation to files appeal has already barred and even so the appellant was not

having expenses to file present appeal.”

Thus, the above cited reason does not constitute sufficient

cause to condone extraordinary delay of 883 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

SUNENA

2026.04.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(cid:1)

FAO-190-2025 Page 2 of 5 (cid:1)

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 883 days. Present

application accordingly stands dismissed

MAIN CASE

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants No.3 & 4

seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.22,31,968/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 22.04.2022 passed in MACP No.14 dated 19.03.2019 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The 6 claimants are the 63-year-old mother, 78-year-old father, 32-year-old widow, 15-year-old son, 13-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son of deceased Surender @ Shyam Sunder, who was 31-and-a-half 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 the deceased Surender @ Shyam Sunder had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 30.01.2019 at about 2:27 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.HR-55-V-4769 (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

SUNENA

2026.04.10 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(cid:1)

FAO-190-2025 Page 3 of 5 (cid:1)

along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and

severally liable for payment of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only Rs.9732/- per month. Meagre amounts have been awarded under all the heads. Nothing has been given for loss of love and affection. Consortium should have been awarded of Rs.1 lakh each. Interest should be 18%. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed

and compensation be enhanced.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in

the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

5. A perusal of record of the case reveals that it was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as Tax Collector on the Toll Booth at KGP Expressway, Chhajjunagar and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, not even an iota of evidence has been led by the appellan