Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Narender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Krishan Kumar – Respondent
FAO-2242-2023
Important Points
Subject
Motor Accidents - Compensation Enhancement
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Motor Vehicles Act - Quantum of compensation - Enhancement of compensation - Evidence regarding higher income was not credible - Tribunal correctly assessed income - No grounds for enhancement. (Para 9-11)
(C) Perjury - Witness turning hostile in criminal trial - Discrepancy between testimony before Tribunal and criminal court - Claimants' stance contradicts previous statements - Court observes potential for perjury cases. (Para 14-17)
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of a 29-year-old woman in a motor vehicle accident. The appellants alleged the deceased, a doctor, had a higher income than assessed. The appeal also faced a delay of 103 days in filing.
Findings of Court:
The Court dismissed the appeal both on the grounds of inordinate, unexplained delay and on merits, noting that the tribunal had correctly assessed income and the evidence regarding higher earnings was not credible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the eyewitness testified inconsistently between the tribunal and the criminal court, suggesting the claimant side had engaged in perjury.
Issues: Whether the 103-day delay should be condoned and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with compensation assessments that are based on solid evidence and fair logic, especially when the appellant fails to explain delays and where the underlying evidence is riddled with material contradictions or potential perjury.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tarun Yadav
For the Respondents: Sarthak Mehta, PHS Pannu
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of income and fair compensation in death claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. impact of hostile witness testimony and perjury on claim validity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-8200-CII-2023
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 103 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
2. The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellants in the abovesaid application for condonation of 103 days delay in filing the appeal is as under:-
“2. That there is a delay in filing the present appeal. The brief and relevant reasons for occurring the said delay are that the applicants/appellants have no much knowledge of law. On passing of the impugned award, applicants/appellants had requested the Clerk of the counsel conducting the case before Ld. MACT, Gurugram to make available the certified copy of the award for the purpose of filing the appeal. It was informed by the Clerk that he will apply for the same and as soon as the certified copy of the award is prepared by the copying agency, the applicants/appellants will be informed.
3. That the clerk of the counsel conducting the case before Ld. MACT, Gurugram contacted the applicants/appellants in the 1 week of March 2023, and told the applicants/appellants that the certified copy of Award had been received and that the same alongwith the brief of the case can be collected from him to file an appeal in the Hon’ble High Court.”
3. The said reason is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone delay of 103 days in filing the present appeal. The said reasons do not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ to condone extraordinary and inordinate delay of 1918 days in filing the present appeal. From the above, it would appear that the applicant/appellant was not serious in pursuing the appeal and therefore, he caused the delay in supplying relevant documents to the learned counsel.
4. Duty lies upon the appellants to be vigilant towards her rights to pursue litigation diligently. The appellants cannot totally sleep upon the matter after allegedly entrusting the same to their counsel. In this situation, it would be apposite to refer to recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi): Law Finder Doc Id # 887148 holding that:
“11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted.”
4. Moreover, it is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666, wherein it is held that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant for condonation of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonation o
