08.05.2025 Parveen v. Shiv Kumar umar and another
Case Details
FAO-7959 59-2017(O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 FAO-7959-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 Parveen .…Appellant Versus Shiv Kumar umar and another ....Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for th for the appellant. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. The present appeal has been f king been filed by the claimant seeking enhancemen cement of compensation of ₹1,99,60 rned ,99,600/- awarded by the learned Motor Accid Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trib Tribunal’) vide Award dated 08.05.2 08.05.2012 passed in Claim Petition No. 147 of 2 7 of 2011 dated 16.02.2011/08.04.20 of .04.2011 filed under Section 166 of the Motor V otor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2.
Legal Reasoning
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 appellant-cla claimant/Parveen, had sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident that nt that took place on 22.02.2010 due t due to rash and negligent driving of Three W ree Wheeler bearing registration No. n No.HR-67-2488 by respondent No.1; insure nsured by respondent No. 2-Insura Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal aw awarded compensation as above a bove along with interest @ 7.5% per annum nnum from the date of filing the g the claim petition till actual . realization. RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7959 59-2017(O&M) -2- 3. Being aggrieved, the applicant sent licant-appellant has filed the present appeal along l along with 02 applications bearing C ring CM-26346-CII-2017 and CM- 26345-CII- -2017 for condonation of inordina ordinate delay of 1291 days in filing and 440 days 0 days in re-filing the accompanying a nying appeal, respectively. 4. Perusal of the order-sheets the heets reveals that notice in the application ation bearing CM-26346-CII-2017, f the 017, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation A tion Act, 1963, was issued by a co ourt co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order order dated 03.05.2023. Pursuant ated uant thereto, office report dated 04.10.2023, 2023, indicates that notices to the res sued the respondents could not be issued for want of p nt of process-fee. 5. 6. Heard. The only ground cited in the ap the application bearing CM-26346- CII-2017 for for condoning inordinate and extr days extraordinary delay of 1291 days in filing the ng the accompanying appeal is that he that ‘the appellant had filed by the appeal vide vide Dairy No. 0860359 dated 23.0 ut 23.08.2012 within limitation, but the registry stry raised an objection and clerk of
Legal Reasoning
nt rk of the counsel for the appellant could not tra ot trace the file from the objection c ed ion cases. The appellant enquired about the ap e appeal then same was searched he and clerk to the counsel or the appellant ca t came to know about the above said nd said fact regarding objection and returning th g the appeal for removal objection. he tion. The clerk again searched the file in regist egistry but could not succeed. Now sh Now, the same appeal filed fresh and in this p his process it becomes delay in filing iling 1291 days’. 7. The said reason does not con ot constitute sufficient ground for condonation nation of extraordinary and inordinate iling rdinate delay of 1291 days in filing RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7959 59-2017(O&M) -3- the appeal. peal. Same reason has been given king given in the application seeking condonation nation of delay in refilling.(cid:1) 8. 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 by hed by the applicant-appellant for cond nate r condonation of such an inordinate and unexpla nexplained delay in filing the accom , accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonation nation of such an inordinate/extrao the /extraordinary delay in filing the accompanyin panying appeal would tantamount to d tion nt to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redu te/redundant, without any justificatio hed fication. The explanation furnished by the appe appellants show that the matter ha ost tter has been pursued with utmost ness. casualness. 9. 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 y. 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 . 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 of onsideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the l , it the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is ba at based upon public policy that there should be an end he end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather tha r than the right itself; RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7959 59-2017(O&M) -4- (ii) A right or the remedy th or dy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long ti or g time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the be the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, s be y, such as Section 3has to be construed in a strict sens be sense whereas Section 5has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance subs al substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-orient of riented approach or cause of substantial justice may b me ay be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to de of defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Se in Section 3of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to ered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if en if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exerc ry xercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not b nt not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for v re for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay ue elay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obt er, s obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that o he at others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court se ourt is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in fil in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are no in e not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and ; and (viii) Delay condonation appl on application has to be decided on the parameters laid down nd down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for ns for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tan he tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.” (Emphasis added) RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-7959 59-2017(O&M) -5- 10. It is my considered view and y of keeping in mind the totality of the facts and cts and circumstances of the case, the e, the reasons cited by the appellant for condonat ndonation of such delay does not const t constitute sufficient cause. 11. In view of the discussion made ions made above, both the applications bearing CM g CM-26346-CII-2017 and CM-2634 tion 26345-CII-2017, for condonation of inordinate rdinate delay of 1291 days in filing the iling; and 440 days in re-filing the accompanyin panying appeal are dismissed. 12. Since, both the applications bea and ns bearing CM-26346-CII-2017 and CM-26345 6345-CII-2017, for condonation of ino s in inordinate delay of 1291 days in filing; and 4 and 440 days in re-filing the accomp accompanying appeal are dismissed on merits, resultantly, the main appeal also l also stands dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, s
Decision
any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 08.05.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.