##PAGE1##

FAO-2043-2024 Page 1 of 6 (cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

238 FAO-2043-2024(O&M)

Date of decision: 09.04.2026 Rasmeena & Others

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Chatta Khan & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate

for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-7771-CII-2024

This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for

condonation of delay of 118 days in filing the appeal.

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

“2. That the appellants is unable to file the present appeal within time due to the financial conditions of the family and the deceased was the only earning member of the family and after his death they arrange the funds for filling the appeal from there near and dears and now filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court without any further delay. Therefore, in this process a delay of 118 days has occurred, which is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons mentioned

above.”

The above cited reason does not constitute sufficient cause to

condone extraordinary delay of 118 days in filing the present appeal. It is

SUNENA

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

(cid:1)

FAO-2043-2024 Page 2 of 6 (cid:1)

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 118 days. Present

application accordingly stands dismissed

MAIN CASE

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation of Rs.6,76,420/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 05.10.2023 passed in MACP/73 dated 15.02.2020 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The 8 claimants are the 52-year-old widow, 31-year-old son, 15-year-old son, 14- year-old daughter, 13-year-old daughter, 11-year-old son, 9-year-old son and 6-year-old son of deceased Iqbal, who was 63 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 Iqbal had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.09.2019 at about 6:30 to 7 pm due to the rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No.RJ-32-UA-2576 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”)

SUNENA

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

(cid:1)

FAO-2043-2024 Page 3 of 6 (cid:1)

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 @ 6% 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 wrongly assessed as per Minimum Wages as Rs.9024/- per month. It is submitted that at the relevant time, Minimum Wages payable was Rs.11,004/- per month. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards love and affection. Very less amount has been awarded towards funeral expenses; whereas the appellants had spent Rs.1 lakh on transportation and last rites. 6% interest is on the lower side; whereas 9% should be awarded. It is accordingly prayed that the present Claim Petition be allowed and Rs.40 lakh

be awarded to the appellants as compensation.

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. It is the pleaded case of the appellants that dece