High Court
Case Details
FAO-1590-2024 2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR GARH(cid:1) 111 (cid:1) Rajesh FAO-1590-2024 (O&M) FAO Date of Decision:06.08.2025 Dat ellant ... Appellant Versus(cid:1) Gulab Singh and and others ... Responden ondents CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Ajay Vijaraniya, Advocate Present: Mr. for the appellant. for t *** *** (cid:1) AMARINDER S RAL) DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been pre The n preferred by the appellant-claima claimant against the imp e impugned award dated 05.07.202 07.2022 passed by the learned Mo d Motor Accident Claims Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short short ‘the learned Tribunal’) seeki seeking enhancement of nt of compensation, accompanied by ied by an application under Section 5 tion 5 of the Limitation Ac tion Act for condonation of delay of 53 y of 533 days in filing the appeal. 2. Succinctly, the facts are that on 0 Succ t on 03.03.2016, the appellant-claima claimant along with Mano Manoj Kumar, Krishan Kumar and r and Rajesh son of Indraj Singh w gh were travelling to Jaip to Jaipur in a Swift Car bearing No.HR No.HR-16P-5451 and at 4:30 PM, wh M, when they reached in t ed in the area of Kajla Ki Dhani, Ma ni, Malikpur on National Highway ne ay near Ringus District istrict Sikar, a tanker truck bearing bearing No.RJ-33GA-2395 (hereinaf reinafter referred to as th as the offending vehicle) driven by ven by respondent No.1 in a rash a rash and negligent manne manner, came and collided against t ainst their swift car. Due to the sa the said impact, the appe appellant received injuries, for which r which he was awarded a compensati ensation of Rs.15,000/- by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by ed by the same, the present appeal h peal has been preferred by rred by the appellant seeking enhancem hancement of compensation.
Legal Reasoning
PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-1590-2024 2024 (O&M) -2- 3. The present appeal is accompanie The panied by an application filed und d under Section 5 of the L f the Limitation Act, seeking condona ondonation of delay of 533 days in fili filing the same on the on the ground that the counsel befo el before the learned Tribunal did n did not communicate the ate the decision of the case to the app he appellant, due to which he could n ould not file the present resent appeal within the period of d of limitation. Furthermore, desp , despite assurance given t en to the appellant by the counsel b unsel before the learned Tribunal that l that he will get arranged ranged an advocate to file appeal bef eal before this Court, the same was n was not done by him. im. Therefore, delay of 533 days 3 days in filing the appeal is neith neither intentional nor w nor willful and as such, prayer is mad is made to condone the same. 4. It is a s apparent that the appellant did n t did not approach this Court by way y way of appeal within t thin the period prescribed under nder the Motor Vehicles Act, 19 ct, 1988 (hereinafter refer r referred to as the Act of 1988). Th . The provisions of Section 173 of t 73 of the Act of 1988 deals 8 deals with appeals, which are reprod reproduced as under:- 173. Appeals: (1) Subject to the the provisions of sub-section (2), a “17 ), any ninety f a Claims Tribunal may, within nin person aggrieved by an award of a C perso urt: prefer an appeal to the High Court: days from the date of the award, pref days to pay by the person who is required to p Provided that no appeal by t e High ard shall be entertained by the Hi any amount in terms of such award any a ees or with it twenty-five thousand rupees Cour Court unless he has deposited with in the fifty per cent of the amount so aw o awarded, whichever is less, in t fifty urt: manner directed by the High Court: mann High Court may entertain the appe Provided further that the Hig od of ninety days, if it is satisfied th after after the expiry of the said period o y sufficient cause from preferring t the appellant was prevented by suf the a appeal in time. appe appeal ed that ing the (2) No appeal shall lie agains if the amount in dispute in the appeal if the gainst any award of a Claims Tribun ribunal ees.” peal is less than [one lakh] rupees. 5. A perusal of the proviso to Section A pe ection 173 of the Act of 1988 makes makes it crystal clear that that the High Court may entertain th rtain the appeal after expiry of the peri e period of 90 days, if it if it is satisfied that the appellant w llant was prevented by 'sufficient cau nt cause' from preferring t rring the appeal in time. Thus, the ap the appellant is required to satisfy th sfy that there was sufficie ufficient cause for the delay. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-1590-2024 2024 (O&M) -3- 6. The phrase 'sufficient cause' as used i The p used in 173 of the Act of 1998 is in p is in pari materia to Secti Section 5 of the Limitation Act, , 1963 and should, therefore, , be interpreted in the in the same way. 7. A bare perusal of the application see A ba seeking condonation of delay sho shows that the appellan pellant has made only general and ba and basic statement without placing a cing any details of the pre the previous counsel or any material t terial to show that efforts were made made by the appellant to to get the appeal filed in time. ime. Neither the name of the previo previous lawyer is mentio entioned; nor any action, is stated to ated to have been taken against him f t him for the negligence. nce. The appellant has to stand on hi on his own legs to establish 'suffic ufficient cause' that preve t prevented him from filing the appe e appeal within the statutory limitati imitation period. Without s thout substantive evidence to support pport the claim, the appellant cannot annot be permitted to bene o benefit from his own negligence or i ce or inaction. 8. The object and purpose of the statutes The o statutes of limitation is to fix the life sp life span of a legal remed remedy so as to put an end to every l very legal remedy as it is futile to ke to keep any litigation o tion or dispute pending indefinitely initely. Furthermore, it is also settl o settled proposition of la of law that delay of each and every every day has to be explained, which which is lacking in the ca the case at hand. When mandatory p tory provision is not complied with a with and delay is not prop t properly, satisfactorily and convinci nvincingly explained, it ought not to not to be condoned on sy on sympathetic grounds alone. Th The statutory provision of law law of limitation may ca may cause hardship or inconvenience nience to a particular party but the co the court has no choice bu ice but to enforce it giving full effect t effect to the same. The Hon’ble Suprem Supreme Court in the ju the judgment passed in Basawraj raj and another Vs. Special La Land Acquisition Offi Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 has o has observed that it is a settled leg led legal proposition that l that law for limitation may harshly af shly affect a particular party but it has t it has to be applied with with all its rigour when the statute tatute so prescribes. The Court has t has no PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-1590-2024 2024 (O&M) -4- power to extend xtend the period of limitation on equ on equitable grounds. A result flowi flowing from a statutory tutory provision is never an evil. A il. A court has no power to ignore th nore that provision to relie to relieve what it considers a distress istress resulting from its operation. T on. The statutory provisio vision may cause hardship or incon r inconvenience to a particular party b party but the court has no as no choice but to enforce it giving iving full effect to the same. The leg he legal maxim dura lex lex sed lex, which means “the law he law is hard but it is the law” stan ” stands attracted in such such a situation. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and ci In vie and circumstance, the explanation giv on given by the appellant ellant for not approaching this Court b ourt by way of instant appeal within t ithin the period of limitati imitation is neither plausible nor con or convincing and thus, does not insp t inspire the confidence of nce of this Court to condone the delay delay of 533 days. 10. Even on merits, the appellant has fail Even as failed to prove the medical bills to t ills to the tune of Rs.80,200 .80,200/- as the same were not exhibit exhibited documents and only marked arked as Mark A. Even n Even no one from the hospitals where where the appellant remained admitt admitted and received trea ed treatment was examined to prove prove said medical bills. Therefore, efore, in this opinion of on of this Court, the learned Tri d Tribunal has rightly assessed t ssed the compensation as ion as Rs.15,000/-. 11. Consequently, the instant appeal sta Cons stands dismissed on the ground round of delay as well as o ell as on merits. AMARINDER SINGH GREWA (AM JUDGE EWAL) , 2025 August 06, 2025 Pankaj* ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh