Ashwani Kumar Vs Yudhishathir

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.19 16:01:28 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:2639

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 2029 of 2024

¶7

Ashwani Kumar S/o Late Jogiram Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Akaltari, Police Station- Akaltari, Police Station- Akaltara, District- JanjgriChampa ( C.G.).

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Yudhishathir S/o Yadho Prasad Verma Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Andhiyaripath Akaltara Police Station- Akaltara, District- JanjgirChampa ( C.G.). ( Vehicle Driver And Owner )

¶11

Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch OfficeGurukripa Tower 2nd Floor Vyapar Vihar Road Opposite Amber Automobiles Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur ( C.G. ). ( Insurer Company )

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

16.01.2026

¶16

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, an application for condonation of delay.

¶17

The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the award passed by the learned 1 st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 224/2022 dated 03.10.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 95,405/- with interest at the rate of 9% on account of injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶18

The claimant has preferred this appeal with delay of 272 days.

¶19

Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate would submit that the claimant had sustained serious injuries in the accident and immediately, after accident he

¶20

2

¶21

was admitted at Jay Ambe Nursing Home, Chandela Nagar, Bilaspur. He would contend that he remained hospitalized till 16.09.2021. It is further argued that on account of miss-communication between the counsel who was appearing before the learned Tribunal and the appellant, the appellant could not prefer appeal within limitation. It is also argued that due to financial restraint, the appellant could not prefer appeal within limitation. He would pray to condone the delay.

¶22

I have heard Mr. Kaiwartya at length and perused the application for condonation of delay.

¶23

Admittedly, award was passed on 03.10.2023 and this appeal was preferred on 23.09.2024. The claimant has not pleaded as to when he approached his counsel appearing before the learned Tribunal and when he collected documents. It is also not stated when he obtained certified copy of award and when he approached his counsel to prefer this appeal. It appears that the claimant has not explained the delay part properly in the application.

¶24

7 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to various judgments in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 : 2024 4 SCR 241 : 2024 INSC 286 while dealing with issue of limitation in paras 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, which are reproduced herein-below:-

¶25

“ 19. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors, A.I.R. 1935 PC 85 , it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.

¶26

20. In this connection, a reference may be made

¶27

3

¶28

to Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors, 2014 (4) SCALE 50 , wherein while observing, as above, this Court further laid down that if some person has obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion.

¶29

21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,[2011] 3 SCR 217 : (2011) 4 SCC 363 , where the High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice- oriented approach’ and ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation.

¶30

22. It has also been settled vide State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 1927 , that the merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶31

23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [2013] 8 SCR 227 : (2013) 14 SCC 81 , this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds . ”

¶32

8 . In para 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba

¶33

4

¶34

Reddy (supra) summarized the judgments passed in the above stated

¶35

decisions and the same is reproduced herein-below:-

¶36

“ 26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law,as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

¶37

(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;

¶38

(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

¶39

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

¶40

(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

¶41

(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

¶42

(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

¶43

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and

¶44

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision. ”

¶45

9 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy

¶46

(supra) further held that the phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice-oriented

¶47

5

¶48

approach’ and ‘cause for the advancement of substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶49

10. Considering inordinate delay of 272 days and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to allow the application for condonation of delay, accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2024 is hereby rejected . Consequently, appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶52

$iddhant

Ashwani Kumar v. Yudhishathir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Kumar v. Yudhishathir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth Vs Rajendra Kumar Sinha

Badrika Vs Pramod Kumar

Ganesh Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Bhoi Vs Hiralal Chauhan

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jhulbai Vs Janakram