Dismissed¶45

Mohit Kumar (Minor) v. Vir Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2025FAO/2560/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO-2560-2021 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; Nidhi Gupta, J.; decided 03.12.2025; condonation of delay of 1103 days; CM-11342-CII-2021; Section 5 Limitation Act; each day's delay explained mathematically; Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act; MACT Ambala; Award dated 08.03.2017; MACT Case No. 65 dated 07.10.2015; compensation enhancement denied; Rs.69,200/-; Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, 2013 (5) Scale 160; appeal dismissed on merits and on grounds of delay.

What did the court decide?

The reason cited for the 1103-day delay is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal. ¶18

Mohit Kumar (Minor) Vs Vir Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1103 days in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (CM-11342-CII-2021). +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The reason cited for the 1103-day delay is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Per Shivamma (2025 INSC 1104), each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner; the applicant-appellant has not done so.

¶20

Key takeaways

No cogent reason or plausible explanation was furnished for condoning the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying appeal.ratio¶20
With the impugned Award dated 8.3.2017 and the appellant having visited his trial-court counsel only on 10.9.2021, the appellant did not pursue the case for almost 2 1/2 years and pursued it with utmost casualness.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Nidhi Gupta, J.), FAO-2560-2021 (O&M), decided 03.12.2025 — Enhancement appeal by a minor injured claimant against MACT Ambala Award dated 08.03.2017 (MACT Case No. 65; Rs.69,200/- awarded under S.166 MV Act) DISMISSED, and application CM-11342-CII-2021 under S.5 Limitation Act seeking condonation of 1103 days' delay in filing the appeal also DISMISSED. On delay: the reason advanced (poverty, illiteracy, mistaken belief that the appeal had been filed, lapse discovered only on 10.09.2021) was held vague and insufficient; relying on Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104, each day's delay must be explained in a mathematical manner; the appellant's almost 2½ years of total inaction showed utmost casualness, and condoning such delay would render the law of limitation obsolete/redundant. On merits: no doctor was produced to prove the injury (fractured shaft of femur, right side); no permanent disability was suffered; medical bills Ex.P5–P29 of Rs.45,115/- (rounded off to Rs.45,200/-) were duly awarded, along with Rs.4,000/- expenses (Rs.1,000/- per day), Rs.10,000/- future medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering; applying the 'just compensation' standard of Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, 2013 (5) Scale 160, no error was found in the Tribunal's computation. Appeal dismissed on merits as well as on grounds of delay; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

FAO-2560-2021(O&M) - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

112 FAO-2560-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.12.2025

¶4

Mohit Kumar (Minor)

¶5

...Appellant(s)

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Vir Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶9

Present:Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

¶11

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶12

CM-11342-CII-2021

¶13

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 1103 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

¶14

The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant in para 3 of the application seeking condonation of delay of 1103 days is: “ That the present appeal is being filed with a bonafide delay of 1103 days. The said delay has occurred due to the fact that the present appellant are extremely poor and uneducated and were laboring under a bonafide impression that their appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court. However, it was only on 10.09.2021 while visiting the trial court upon inquiry from their trial court counsel it transpired that the said appeal could not be filed on account of lack of instructions. The documents were then

¶15

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

FAO-2560-2021(O&M) - 2 -

¶17

collected and the present counsel has been engaged. However, in the process a delay of 1103 days has occurred. ”

¶18

The said reason is vague and does not const i tute sufcient Ï cause to condone extraordinary delay of 1103 days in f i ling the present appeal.

¶19

It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 t i tled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666, wherein

¶20

it is held that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathemat i cal manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellant. No cogent reason or plausible explanat i on has been furnished by the applicant for condonat i on of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in f i ling the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonat i on of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limitat i on obsolete/redundant, without any just i f i cat i on. The impugned Award is dated 8.3.2017; whereas appellant visited his trial court counsel only on 10.9.2021. Thus, for almost 2 1/2 years, appellant did not pursue the case at all. Thus, the explanat i on furnished by the appellant shows that the mat t er has been pursued with utmost casualness.

¶21

5 . As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay

¶22

of 1103 days. Present applicat i on accordingly stands dismissed .

¶23

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

FAO-2560-2021(O&M) - 3 -

¶25

FAO-2560-2021 (O&M)

¶26

The present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.69,200/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 08.03.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 65 dated 07.10.2015 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 30.03.2015 at about 11:30 AM due to the rash and negligent driving of a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-03R-8971 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The above said compensation was awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. All the respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitÝng that medical expenses paid by the learned Tribunal to the appellant are liable to be enhanced. Even nothing has been paid towards pain and suffering. Nothing has been awarded for loss of amenities; for loss of employment and avocation; and even nothing has been awarded for loss of earning. It is accordingly submitted that compensation of

¶29

Rs.69,200/- is grossly inadequate. He accordingly prays that the present appeal be allowed; and the compensation be enhanced.

¶30

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

FAO-2560-2021(O&M) - 4 -

¶32

No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

¶33

Perusal of the record of the case shows that in the accident in question, appellant had suffered fractured shaft of femur right side. It is to be noted that no doctor was produced by the appellant as witness to prove the injury of the appellant. Appellant had produced only his grandmother as PW1 and PW2 Pawan Kumar, who is the real uncle of the appellant. Admittedly, appellant has not suffered any permanent disability in the accident in question. As per the record, Appellant had been admitted in hospital on 30.03.2015 and discharged on 03.04.2015. Appellant had produced medical bills Ex.P5 to Ex.P29 for a total amount of Rs. 45,115/which was rounded off to Rs.45,200/- which was duly awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation in the following manner:-

¶34

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

¶35

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, Rs.45200/medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and (medicine bills) miscellaneous expenditure. plus Rs.4000/(Rs.1000/- per day) including all expenses.

¶36

(ii). Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loos of future earning on account of injuries etc. Nil Nil (iii) Future medical expenses. 10,000/- Non-Pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a 10,000/-

¶37

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

FAO-2560-2021(O&M) - 5 -

¶39

consequence of the injuries
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).	nil
(vi). Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal	nil
longevity).
Total Compensation	Rs.69,200/-

¶40

In the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, I find

¶41

no error in the compensation as computed by the learned Tribunal. The Apex Court in the case of “Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (SC) 2013(5)

¶42

Scale 160; Law Finder Doc ID # 421379; has held that:

¶43

“ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sect i on 168 - Sect i on 168 provides that amount of compensat i on awarded by the Claims Tribunal which appears to it to be just - The expression, 'just' means that the amount so determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards and not a forensic lot t ery - Obviously 'just compensat i on' does not mean 'perfect' or 'absolute' compensat i on - The just compensat i on principle requires examinat i on of the part i cular situat i on obtaining uniquely in an individual case.”

¶44

Keeping in view the above factual and legal posit i on, no

¶45

ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. The present Appeal is accordingly dismissed on merits, as well as on grounds of delay.

¶46

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶47

03.12.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶48

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mohit Kumar (Minor) v. Vir Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kumar (Minor) v. Vir 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

Nagar Singh Khattra and Others Vs Priyank Bharti

Nirmal Singh and Anr. Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.

Sdo Op Sub Division Uklana Dhbvn Hisar Vs Joginder

Bhateri and Others Vs Bharat Bhushan and Others

Gurcharan Singh Deceased through His Lrs Vs General Public and Ors.

Sant Kumar Vs Makhan Singh and Another