Rajesh Vs Gulab Singh and Others

T h e present appeal has been p r eferred by the appellant-clai m ant against the i m pugned award dated 05.07.2 0 22 passed by the learned M otor Accident Clai m s Tribunal, Bhiwani (for sh o rt ‘the learned Tribunal’) see k ing enhancement of compensation, accompanied b y an application under Section 5 of the Limitation A ct for condonation of delay of 5 33 days in filing the appeal. 2. S u ccinctly, the facts are that on 03.03.2016, the appellant-clai m ant along with M a noj Kumar, Krishan Kumar and Rajesh son of Indraj Singh w ere travelling to Ja i pur in a Swift Car bearing No. H R-16P-5451 and at 4:30 PM, w hen they reached i n the area of Kajla Ki Dhani, M alikpur on National Highway n ear Ringus Distri c t Sikar, a tanker truck beari n g No.RJ-33GA-2395 (herein a fter referred to as the offending vehicle) driven b y respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent man n er, came and collided agains t their swift car. Due to the said impact, the ap p ellant received injuries, for wh i ch he was awarded a compens a tion of Rs.15,000/by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred b y the appellant seeking enhanc e ment of compensation.

¶12

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶13

FAO-1590-2024 (O&M) -2-

¶14

Th e present appeal is accompa n ied by an application filed u n der Section 5 of th e Limitation Act, seeking condo n ation of delay of 533 days in f i ling the same on t h e ground that the counsel b e fore the learned Tribunal did not communicate t h e decision of the case to the a p pellant, due to which he coul d not file the prese n t appeal within the period o f limitation. Furthermore, de s pite assurance give n to the appellant by the counse l before the learned Tribunal th a t he will get arrang e d an advocate to file appeal b efore this Court, the same was not done by him. Therefore, delay of 533 da y s in filing the appeal is ne i ther intentional nor w illful and as such, prayer is m a de to condone the same. 4. It i s apparent that the appellant di d not approach this Court by w a y of appeal within the period prescribed unde r the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 988 (hereinafter re fe rred to as the Act of 1988). T he provisions of Section 173 o f the Act of 1988 de a ls with appeals, which are repr o duced as under:-

¶15

“ 173. Appeals : (1) Subject to th e provisions of sub-section (2), any pe r son aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within n i nety da y s from the date of the award, pr e fer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal b y the person who is required to pay an y amount in terms of such awa r d shall be entertained by the H igh Co u rt unless he has deposited wit h it twenty-five thousand rupe e s or fift y per cent of the amount so a warded, whichever is less, in the ma n ner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the H igh Court may entertain the ap p eal aft e r the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by s u fficient cause from preferrin g the ap p eal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Trib u nal if t h e amount in dispute in the appeal is less than [one lakh] rupees.” 5. A p erusal of the proviso to Sectio n 173 of the Act of 1988 mak e s it

¶16

crystal clear th a t the High Court may entertain the appeal after expiry of the p e riod of 90 days, if i t is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by 'sufficient c a use' from preferrin g the appeal in time. Thus, the appellant is required to satisfy that there was suffi c ient cause for the delay.

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶18

FAO-1590-2024 (O&M) -3-

¶19

Th e phrase 'sufficient cause' as use d in 173 of the Act of 1998 is in p ari materia to Se c tion 5 of the Limitation Act , 1963 and should, therefore , be interpreted in t h e same way. 7. A b are perusal of the application s eeking condonation of delay s h ows that the appell a nt has made only general and b asic statement without placing any details of the previous counsel or any materia l to show that efforts were mad e by the appellant t o get the appeal filed in time. Neither the name of the pre v ious lawyer is ment i oned; nor any action, is stated to have been taken against hi m for the negligence. The appellant has to stand on his own legs to establish 'suffi c ient cause' that pre v ented him from filing the appeal within the statutory limit a tion period. Withou t substantive evidence to suppo r t the claim, the appellant cann o t be permitted to be n efit from his own negligence o r inaction.

¶20

Th e object and purpose of the statut e s of limitation is to fix the life s pan of a legal rem e dy so as to put an end to ever y legal remedy as it is futile to k eep any litigation or dispute pending indefinite l y. Furthermore, it is also se t tled proposition of l aw that delay of each and eve ry day has to be explained, whi c h is lacking in the c ase at hand. When mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not pr o perly, satisfactorily and convi n cingly explained, it ought not t o be condoned on sympathetic grounds alone. T he statutory provision of la w of limitation may cause hardship or inconvenien c e to a particular party but the c ourt has no choice b ut to enforce it giving full effec t to the same. The Hon’ble Sup r eme Court in the j udgment passed in Basawraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 has observed that it is a settled l egal proposition tha t law for limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it h a s to be applied wit h all its rigour when the statut e so prescribes. The Court ha s no

¶21

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶22

FAO-1590-2024 (O&M) -4-

¶23

power to exte n d the period of limitation on e q uitable grounds. A result flo w ing from a statutor y provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to re l ieve what it considers a distre s s resulting from its operation. The statutory provi s ion may cause hardship or inc o nvenience to a particular part y but the court has no choice but to enforce it givin g full effect to the same. The l egal maxim dura l ex sed lex, which means “the l a w is hard but it is the law” st a nds attracted in suc h a situation.

¶24

In v iew of the aforesaid facts and c ircumstance, the explanation given by the appella n t for not approaching this Cour t by way of instant appeal withi n the period of limit a tion is neither plausible nor c o nvincing and thus, does not in s pire the confidence of this Court to condone the del a y of 533 days. 10. Ev e n on merits, the appellant has f a iled to prove the medical bills t o the tune of Rs.80, 2 00/- as the same were not exhi b ited documents and only mark e d as Mark A. Eve n no one from the hospitals wh e re the appellant remained adm i tted and received t r eatment was examined to pro v e said medical bills. Therefor e , in this opinion o f this Court, the learned T ribunal has rightly assessed the compensation a s Rs.15,000/-. 11. Co n sequently, the instant appeal s tands dismissed on the groun d of delay as well a s on merits.

¶25

August 06, 202 5	(A M	ARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE L)
Pankaj*	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶26

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.08 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Rajesh v. Gulab Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh v. Gulab Singh and Others

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

Sabir Vs Jamil Khan and Others

Hiri Dyanti Vs Parminder & Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Rooba Alias Rubina and Others

Irina Singh Vs Sujjan Singh