IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

214 FAO-4054-2013(O&M)

Date of decision: 27.04.2026 Baljinder Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate Mr. Deep Inder Singh Walia, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-16401-CII-2013 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 131 days in filing the appeal.

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

“2. That the appellant was never served in aforesaid claim petition no. No.RT-1 of 17.04.2008 filed by the claimants. The perusal of copy of Award and various interim orders clearly establishes that the wrong address of the appellant has been mentioned in the claim petition and no proper service has been effected upon the appellant. Rather when the claimants failed to serve the appellant, they chose a novel method by playing a fraud upon the appellant to produce Smt. Poonak Madaan, Advocate by filing a power of attorney by forging the signatures of the appellant and appeared only for one date. The appellant is totally illiterate and does not know how to sign. The thumb impression of appellant in his saving bank record of HDFC and on ration card also proves this fact. Besides this, it is relevant to mention that the appellant has already sold the aforesaid truck to Jagir Singh son of Harnek Singh.”

The above cited reason does not constitute sufficient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 131 days in filing the present appeal. The Tribunal has categorically observed in the impugned Award that appellant was served in accordance with law. As such, the sole reason cited by the appellant is not sufficient ground to condone delay of 131 days in filing the 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 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 131 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed CM-16403-CII-2013 This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the appellant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions; and documents Annexure A1 to Annexure A5 are taken on record.

MAIN CASE Present appeal has been filed by the owner of truck bearing registration No.PB-11-J-3576 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’), laying challenge to the Award dated 26.10.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby Claim Petition No.RT-1 dated 17.04.2008 filed by the claimants/respondents No.3 to 8 herein, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”), has been allowed; and compensation of Rs.7,05,000/- has been awarded to them along with interest @ 9% per annum. The 6 claimants are the 26-year-old widow, 7-year-old daughter, 5- year-old son, 46-year-old mother, 17-year-old brother and 12-year-old brother of deceased Sanjay Kumar, who was 26 years old at time accident. 2. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal concluded that deceased Sanjay Kumar had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.03.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.PB-11-J-3576 (referred to herein as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.2, owned by the appellant, and insured by respondent No.1. The appellant and respondent No.2/driver were proceeded against ex parte as they failed to put an appearance despite Service. Recovery rights were given to the Insurance