CM-11382-CII-2021

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 420 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant in the abovesaid application for condonation of 420 days delay in filing the appeal is as under:-

“3. That the appellant could not file the appeal before this Hon'ble Court within limitation because the file was not handed over to them by the Lower Court Counsel. He informed that the certified copy has not been received and the appellant will be intimated as and when same is received.”

It is submitted that even despite reminders, learned counsel before the Tribunal did not handover the file to the appellant as a result of which, appeal could not be filed in time.

Heard.

The above said reason given on behalf of the appellant is vague and does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of inordinate delay of 420 days. Application does not mention as to on which date, the appellant received the documents from the Lower Court counsel. In fact, the said reason reflects lackadaisical approach of the appellant in filing the present Appeal.

Duty lies upon the appellant to be vigilant towards her rights to pursue litigation diligently. The appellant 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.”

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-appellant. 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.

As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 420 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.

FAO-2604-2021 (O&M)

The present appeal has been filed by the sole claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.12,22,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 05.07.2019 passed in MACP Case No. 444 dated 30.11.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The sole claimant, namely, Mandeep Singh son of Jagir Singh son of Shri Chand is 32-year-old husband of the deceased Harjit Kaur, who wa