05.05.2025 Smt. Sayra a ayra and another v. Vinod Kuma Kumar and others
Case Details
FAO-997-20 2019 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 FAO-997-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 Smt. Sayra a ayra and another .…Appellants Versus Vinod Kuma Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vishvajeet Singh, Advocate vocate for the appellants. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. The present appeal has been fi king een filed by the claimants seeking enhancemen cement of compensation of ₹3,50,00 rned 000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accid Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trib Tribunal’) vide Award dated 22.07. ition 22.07.2014 passed in claim petition bearing MA MACT Case No. RBT-95 of 2012 2012 dated 10.12.2012/21.01.2013 filed under under Section 166 of the Motor V tor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 02 claimants ar nts are the parents of the deceased o be ased -Talim, who was stated to be about 20 yea cident. years of age at the time of accident. 2. Brief facts of the case are that e that the learned Tribunal on the basis of ple of pleadings and evidence adduced dduced before it concluded that deceased-Ta Talim, had died in a motor vehicu vehicular accident that took place on 13.01.20 .01.2010 due to rash and negligent ligent driving of tractor bearing registration ation No.HNL-4956 by respondent N dent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offen offending vehicle’); which was owne owned by respondent No. 2; and respondent dent No. 3 is the Transferee eree Owner. Learned Tribunal RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-997-20 2019 (O&M) -2- awarded com ed compensation as above along with g with interest @ 6% per annum from the date he date of filing the claim petition till a n till actual realization. 3. Being aggrieved, the applica the pplicant-appellants have filed the present appe t appeal along with an application 019, cation bearing CM-2977-CII-2019, under Sectio Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for co for condonation of inordinate delay of 1555 days days in filing the accompanying app ng appeal. 4. 5. Heard. The only ground cited in th in the application for condoning inordinate nate and extraordinary delay of y of 1555 days in filing the the accompanyin panying appeal is that ‘the appella he pellants who are parents of the deceased do do not understanding the complexi re plexities of law and are not aware that they ha y have remedy of filing the appeal re peal against the award and were also not awa aware about the period of limitation ation in filing the appeal’. 6. The said reason does not con ot constitute sufficient ground for condonation nation of extraordinary and inordinate iling rdinate delay of 1555 days in filing peal. (cid:1) the appeal. 7. It is well-settled proposition of has ion of law that each day's delay has to be explain xplained in a mathematical manner w the ner which has not been done by the applicant-ap appellants. No cogent reason or p een n or plausible explanation has been furnished b hed by the applicant-appellants fo an for condonation of such an inordinate a nate and unexplained delay in filin filing the accompanying appeal. Moreover, co , condonation of such an inordinat iling rdinate/extraordinary delay in filing the accompa companying appeal would tantamou of ntamount to declaring the law of limitation ob tion obsolete/redundant, without any tion t any justification. The explanation RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-997-20 2019 (O&M) -3- furnished by hed by the appellants show that the m ith t the matter has been pursued with utmost casua t casualness. 8. The Law of Limitation is en as a is enacted with a purpose, as a handmaid of aid of Justice and cannot be ignored/r iece ored/reduced to an ineffective piece of paper by er by giving it the complete go-by. It very by. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to pu t to pursue his case diligently; and it is this nd it is also the bounden duty of this Court to ens to ensure that justice inures to both pa ’ble oth parties concerned. The Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy vs. ddy (Died) by LRs and others vs. The Special ecial Deputy Collector (LA), Law F has w Finder Doc Id # 2542600, has recently held ly held as under:- “26. On a harmonious consi the law, as aforesaid, and the l is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is ba there should be an end right to remedy rather tha (ii) A right or the remedy th availed of for a long ti cease to exist after a fixed (iii) The provisions of the construed differently, s construed in a strict sens construed liberally; In order to advance subs approach, justice-orient substantial justice may b cannot be used to de limitation contained in Se (v) Courts are empowered condone the delay if explained, but that exerc in nature and may not b cause is established for v there is inordinate delay diligence; (iv) onsideration of the provisions of of , it the law laid down by this Court, it s based upon public policy that at he end to litigation by forfeiting the r than the right itself; dy that has not been exercised or or or g time must come to an end or fixed period of time; the Limitation Act have to be be be y, such as Section 3has to be be sense whereas Section 5has to be al substantial justice, though liberal riented approach or cause of of ay be kept in mind but the same me of defeat the substantial law of in Section 3of the Limitation Act; ered to exercise discretion to to en if sufficient cause had been xercise of power is discretionary ry not be exercised even if sufficient nt for various factors such as, where re ue elay, negligence and want of due (vi) Merely some persons obt it does not mean that o same benefit if the court shown for the delay in fil er, s obtained relief in similar matter, he at others are also entitled to the se ourt is not satisfied with the cause in filing the appeal; RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-997-20 2019 (O&M) -4- (vii) Merits of the case are no condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation appl the parameters laid down condoning the delay for have been imposed, tan statutory provision.” in e not required to be considered in ; and on application has to be decided on down for condoning the delay and nd for the reason that the conditions ns he tantamounts to disregarding the (Emphasis added) 9. It is my considered view and y of keeping in mind the totality of the facts and ts and circumstances of the case, the r ants e, the reasons cited by the appellants for condonat ndonation of such delay does not const t constitute sufficient cause. 10. In view of the discussion made tion made above, the present application bearing CM g CM-2977-CII-2019, for condonatio s in donation of delay of 1555 days in filing the acc the accompanying appeal is dismissed issed. 11. Since, the application for condo days condonation of delay of 1555 days in filing the ng the main appeal bearing FAO- on -997-2019, was dismissed on merits, there therefore, no separate order is requ ain s required to be passed in the main appeal and th l and the same also resultantly stands ands dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, s
Decision
any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 05.05.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.07 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.