Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 82043
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Komal Devi – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar – Respondent
FAO-1162-2023 (O&M)
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation - Testimony of witness - Contradictory statements - Crucial witness turning hostile in criminal trial regarding the same occurrence - Testimony before Tribunal unworthy of credence - Claim liable to be dismissed where evidence is contradictory and lacks consistency - Perjury concerns. (Paras 14, 15, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, claimants for compensation following a fatal motor accident, sought enhancement of the award granted by the Tribunal. An application for condonation of delay of 106 days was filed, citing lack of knowledge and negligence of counsel. Concurrently, the primary witness (the father of the deceased) who testified about the accident before the Tribunal, had turned hostile in the corresponding criminal trial, denying the involvement of the offending vehicle.
Findings of Court:
The delay application is dismissed due to lack of sufficient cause. On merits, the court noted that the testimony of the vital witness was inherently unreliable due to his hostile stance in the criminal trial, creating a direct contradiction that renders the witness unworthy of acceptance. The claim was based on false testimony intended to secure compensation.
Issues: Whether there is sufficient cause for condoning the 106-day delay and whether the compensation awarded should be enhanced considering the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: If an eye-witness gives a totally different version in a criminal trial compared to the statement made before the Tribunal, the testimony is unworthy of acceptance and should be rejected; such contradictions in witness testimony lead to the dismissal of the claim.
Result: Appeal dismissed on merits and on the ground of delay.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kritika Mandhan
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay requires valid justification and proof of litigant diligence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contradictory witness testimony across different courts undermines claim reliability and warrants dismissal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
***
CM-4512-CII-2023
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 106 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
2. The only reason cited by the applicant/appellant in the abovesaid application for condonation of 106 days delay in filing the appeal is as under:-
“2. That the appellants are simplicitor Villagers and do not know much about the court procedure especially the law of limitation. They have collected the documents and judgment from the counsel at lower court and the same has been handed over to a counsel of High Court through their counsel at lower Court in the month of July, 2022 i.e. well within limitation. However, in the month of December, 2022, on enquiry, the appellants have come to know that no appeal has been filed by the said counsel on their behalf in this Hon'ble Court and when asked the reason for not filing the appeal, then it was informed that they have not make the full payment of counsel fees and other expenses and they have made only part payment, therefore, the appeal was not filed.”
3. The above said reason given on behalf of the appellants is vague and does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of inordinate delay of 106 days. The said reason reflects lackadaisical approach of the appellants in filing the present Appeal as, after handing over documents to the ld. Counsel, appellants did not pursue the matter. This cryptic explanation furnished by the applicants does not constitute ‘sufficient cause’.
4. Duty lies upon the appellants to be vigilant towards their 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.”
5. 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 of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification.
6. As such, no ground is
