Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 90297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Gurinder Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Surjit Singh – Respondent
FAO No.4755 of 2019
Important Points
Subject
Motor Accidents Claims - Compensation Enhancement
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Chapter 12 - Compensation - Enhancement - Claimant turned hostile in criminal trial, denying accused’s involvement - Contradictory stances taken before Tribunal and Criminal Court render testimony unworthy of acceptance - Misplaced sympathy cannot be a ground for awarding profit or windfall - No merit found in appeal for enhancement of compensation.
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought enhancement of compensation originally awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The appellant had initially claimed rash and negligent driving against the respondent, but subsequently turned hostile in the criminal trial, resulting in the acquittal of the accused. The application for condonation of delay of 140 days was also filed.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained. On merits, the court observed that the appellant gave diametrically opposite statements in the criminal court and the Tribunal, warranting rejection of his testimony as potentially perjurious. The compensation previously awarded was found to be just and reasonable.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement given the contradictory statements of the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court cannot entertain a claim where the appellant provides inconsistent versions before judicial forums, nor can it condone inordinate delay without substantial explanation; compensation in motor accident cases must be just and reasonable, not a source of profit. Result : Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhupinder Singh
For the Respondents: Kanchan Sidhu
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments concerning enhancement of compensation in motor accident claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. rejection of claims based on perjury and contradictory testimonies before courts. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
CM No.15942-CII of 2019
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 140 days in filing the present appeal.
2. Only reasons given by the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of inordinate delay of 140 days is in para 3 of the present application which reads as follows: -
“3. That the appellant is very poor person and was not able to pay the fee of the counsel to be engaged to file the appeal before this Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter, appellant arranged the amount to pay the counsel’s fee and approached the counsel for the appellant for filing the appeal. That due to the abovesaid reason, the delay of 140 days has been occurred.”
3. The aforesaid reason submitted by the applicant-appellant is cryptic, vague and general and does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the present application. Despite Court query, ld. Counsel for the applicant is unable to inform this Court as to on which date the compensation amount of Rs.5 lacs was received by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is unable to substantiate his plea that he did not have sufficient funds for filing the appeal within limitation.
4. 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.
5. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 140 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.
FAO No.4755 of 2019 (O&M)
The present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.5 lacs awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 21.11.2018 passed in MACP Case No.441 dated 19.09.2017 filed under Sections 166, 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings, and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, had concluded that that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that had taken place on 26.02.2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registration No.HR-37D-5818 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The abovesaid compensation of Rs. 5 lacs has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that the appellant had remained hospitalised from 27.02.2017 till 06.03.2017 i.e for a period of 08 days. In the accident dated 26.02.2017, the appellant has also suffered 24% permanent disability. Prior to the accident, the appellant was working as an agriculturalist however due to his disability, the appellant is unable to do his previous work. It is submitted
