IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.04.2026 Asha and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

National Insurance Company Ltd. and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Aman Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-23284-CII-2025 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 1918 days in filing the appeal.

2. The reason cited by the applicant/appellants in the abovesaid application for condonation of 1918 days delay in filing appeal is as under:-

“3. That the present appellant no.1/claimant/widow signed the relevant papers for filing the appeal against the impugned award presented by her in-laws for filing the appeal for enhancement. That the in-laws i.e., claimant No. 3 & 4 has now been expired who were earlier pursuing the case. Now, she received a notice from this Hon'ble Court for mediation in the appeal filed by the insurance company. thereafter, the applicant tried to get the status of the appeal and but it checked from some of her known counsel then it came to the knowledge that the appeal for enhancement has not been filed only the counsel has been engaged for pursuing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award.”

3. The said reasons do not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ to condone extraordinary and inordinate delay of 1918 days in filing the present appeal. From the above, it would appear that the applicant/appellant was not serious in pursuing the appeal and therefore, she caused the delay in supplying relevant documents to the learned counsel.

4. Duty lies upon the appellants to be vigilant towards her 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. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 1918 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.

FAO-6555-2025 (O&M)

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants No.1 and 2 seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,27,170/- granted by the learned MACT, Narnaul vide Award dated 22.03.2018 passed in MACT Case No. 30 dated 17.03.2017 filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The 4 claimants before the Tribunal are the 23-year-old widow; 1 ½ year old daughter; 68-year-old mother; and 72-year-old father of the deceased Daya Ram, who was 26 years old at the time of accident. The present appeal has been filed only by claimants No.1 and 2. Claimants No.3 and 4 are the performa respondents No. 2 and 3 herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased- Daya Ram had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 17.11.2016 at about 6/6: