##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

FAO-989-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 14.05.2026

Bharat Raj Singh and another

. . . . Appellants

Vs.

Budha Ram and others

. . . . Respondents

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. Mukesh Rao, Advocate, for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed assailing the award dated

06.08.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari,

whereby compensation on account of death of Sumit was awarded to the

claimants. The present appeal seeks enhancement of compensation awarded

by the Tribunal.

2. Briefly noticed, Sumit, an unmarried young boy aged about 21

years, lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 21.09.2012

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. His parents

instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

seeking compensation against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

Learned Tribunal, vide award dated 06.08.2015, allowed compensation of

₹8,27,600/- along with interest and held the respondents jointly and severally

liable to satisfy the award.

3. Along with the appeal, the appellants have moved an application

bearing CM-3913-CII-2026 under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay

of 1950 days in re-filing the appeal.

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.15 14:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-989-2026 2026:PHHC:076405

4. In the application, it has been pleaded that the offending vehicle

was a road roller, which was allegedly neither registered nor insured and that

the owner had fabricated ante-dated documents to evade liability. It is further

averred that the appellants had simultaneously initiated proceedings

challenging release of the offending vehicle on superdari and had approached

counsel for filing both the matters before this Court. According to the

appellants, due to incomplete instructions furnished by the local counsel,

objections were raised by the Registry and the appeal could not be re-filed. It

has further been pleaded that the appellants remained under a bona fide

impression that the present appeal had already been filed and tagged with

connected criminal proceedings and that the matter could not be traced for a

considerable period especially after death of the local counsel in June 2016.

Ultimately, after tracing the file in December 2025, the present appeal came to

be re-filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the delay is

wholly unintentional and attributable to bona fide circumstances arising out of

miscommunication between the local counsel and arguing counsel. Reliance

has been placed upon judgments rendered in Dhiraj Singh (D) Tr. LRs. Etc. Vs.

Haryana State and others etc., 2015(1) SCCF (Civil) 236 and Darshan Pal Vs.

State of Punjab and others, Law Finder Doc ID # 1673953 to contend that a

liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering applications seeking

condonation of delay.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and upon perusal

of the record, this Court finds no ground to condone the enormous delay of

1950 days in re-filing the appeal.

7. It is well settled that though the expression “sufficient cause”

occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves liberal construction in

appropriate cases so as to advance substantial justice, yet such liberality cannot

be extended to cases exhibiting gross negligence, inaction or complete lack of

due diligence on the part of the litigant. Law of limitation is founded upon

public policy and is intended to ensure certainty and finality in judicial

proceedings. A litigant seeking condonation of an inordinate delay is required

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.15 14:59

I attest to the accuracy and Page 2 of 4

integrity of this document

FAO-989-2026 2026:PHHC:076405

to furnish a cogent, convincing and satisfactory explanation covering the entire

period of delay.

8. In the present case, the delay is not of a few days or months but of

more than five years. Such