Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 82979
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Madan Lal – Appellant
Versus
HDFC EGRO General Insurance Co. Ltd – Respondent
FAO-5464-2013
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accidents Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The appellant, owner of the offending truck, filed an appeal against an award granting the insurance company recovery rights because no route permit was produced during the original claim proceedings. The appellant sought to condone a 329-day delay and introduce the route permit as additional evidence in the appeal, alleging the failure to produce it at the trial was the fault of his counsel.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the appellant failed to show 'due diligence' to justify either the delay or the introduction of additional evidence. The blame cannot be shifted entirely to counsel. The court refused to allow the appellant to fill gaps in evidence caused by his own negligence and noted that the recovery rights were rightly granted given the failure to produce the permit before the tribunal.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether additional evidence (route permit) should be admitted in the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot, by mere negligence or failure to produce evidence at the trial, utilize appellate procedures to rectify their own lack of due diligence or to fill evidentiary lacunae, especially where the evidence was within their knowledge and control.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.K. Bagri
For the Respondents: Pradeep Kumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lack of evidence at trial stage justifies granting recovery rights to an insurance company. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. additional evidence at appellate stage cannot be used to fill lacunae created by negligence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-23110-CII-2013
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 329 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant appellant/owner of the offending vehicle, that the delay of 329 days in filing the present appeal has been occasioned on account of the fact that the appellant was not aware that recovery rights had been granted to respondent No.1/Insurance Company against the applicant. It is submitted that it is only when the applicant received notice of the execution petition filed by respondent No.1 for attachment of the offending truck that the applicant discovered that the recovery rights had been granted against him. It is submitted that the applicant immediately applied for certified copy of the Award dated 26.10.2013, which was prepared on 29.10.2013, delivered on 02.11.2013. Thereafter, due to Diwali holidays, the Courts remained closed and reopened only on 06.11.2013. The applicant, then arranged the money for filing the present appeal; whereafter the appeal was filed on 14.11.2013. It is accordingly prayed that the present application be allowed and the inadvertent delay caused in filing the appeal on account of the above said factors be condoned.
3. Ld. counsel for respondent No.1/Insurance Company vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and submits that a perusal of the record of the case shows that applicant has not been diligent in his pursuit of the present matter. It is accordingly prayed that the present application be dismissed.
4. Heard.
5. The abovesaid reasons cited by the applicant do not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ to condone extraordinary and inordinate delay of 329 days in filing the present appeal. From the above, it would appear that the applicant/appellant was not serious in pursuing the appeal.
6. Duty lies upon the appellant to be vigilant towards his rights to pursue litigation diligently. The appellant cannot totally sleep upon the matter after allegedly entrusting the same to his counsel. In this situation, it would be apposite to refer to 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.”
7. Furthermore, it is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference is made to 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. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been
