Promila and Others Vs Tarsem and Others

The present appeal has been p r eferred by the appellants-claim a nt against the impugned award dated 15.02. 2 016 passed by the learned Mo t or Accident C l aims Tribunal, Kaithal (for sh o rt ‘the learned Tribunal’) seek i ng enhanceme n t of compensation, accompani e d by an application under Sect i on 5 of the Li m itation Act for condonation o f delay of 2673 days in filing t he appeal.

¶16

Succinctly, the facts are that o n 31.03.2015, Jainender @ Bhullar m (since dece a sed) along with Surinder Si n gh @ Raju was travelling fr o Kaithal to t h eir village Sambhal Wali on a Hero motorcycle. Jainender w as driving the motorcycle at a moderate spe e d on the extreme left side of t he road, while Surinder Singh was riding pilli o n. At about 8:00 p.m., when t h ey reached nea r Rajbaha in the area of village P eonda on the Jind–Kaithal roa d , a car bearin g registration No. HR-06R-68 8 3(hereinafter referred to as t he offending vehicle), being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and neglig e nt manner, at a high speed, without blowing horn and coming on the wrong s i de of the road f rom Jind side, struck the front r ight side of their motorcycle. D ue

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶18

FAO-3855-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶19

to the impa c t, both occupants of the motorcycle fell on the road and sustai n ed multiple gr i evous injuries. Jainender succ u mbed to the injuries on the spot. The respon d ent No.1, driver of the offen d ing vehicle stopped momenta r ily and then fle d . Consequently, FIR No.26 dat e d 01.04.2015 under Sections 2 7 9, 337 and 30 4 -A IPC was registered at Poli c e Station Titram. Occasioned by the same, claim petition was preferred by le g al representatives of the decea s ed where the learned Tribunal awarded com p ensation of Rs.26,43,000/- to t he claimants b e ing widow, minor son and mot h er of the deceased. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been p r eferred by the appellant seek i ng enhanceme n t of compensation. 3. T he present appeal is accompa n ied by an application filed un d er Section 5 o f the Limitation Act, seeking co n donation of delay of 2673 days in filing the s a me on the ground that appella n t No.1, being a village househ o ld lady, reposed complete faith in her ea r lier counsel, Sh. Mehar Sin g h, Advocate, u nder the impression that the appeal against the award da t ed 15.02.2016 had been duly filed. For ab o ut nine years, the said counsel repeatedly a ssured her that the appeal was p ending before this Hon’ble Co u rt and would b e listed in due course. Howev e r, in February 2025, upon enqu i ry made throu g h her relative, it came to light t hat no such appeal had ever b e en filed. When confronted, the said counsel no t only failed to disclose any app e al number but also threatened the appellant. I t was further revealed that des p ite receiving fi l ing expenses, vakalatnama, bla n k papers, and even 10% fee on t he award, the counsel had deliberately misle d the appellants. Consequently , a complaint dated 23.04.2025 was lodged be f ore the Bar Council of Punjab a nd Haryana, d uly acknowledged on 02.05. 2 025. Thereafter, the appella n ts reconstruct e d the brief, arranged resources , and engaged the present coun s el

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶21

FAO-3855-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶22

on 27.05.2 0 25, who promptly filed the a p peal on 29.05.2025. Therefore, delay of 26 7 3 days in filing the appeal is n e ither intentional nor willful and as such, praye r is made to condone the same.

¶23

I t is apparent that the appellan t s did not approach this Court by way of appeal within the period prescrib e d under the Motor Vehicles A ct, 1988 (herei n after referred to as the Act of 1988). The provisions of Sect i on 173 of the A ct of 1988 deals with appeals, w hich are reproduced as under:-

¶24

“ 173. Appeals :(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2 ), any person aggrieved by an a ward of a Claims Tribunal m a y, within ninety days from the dat e of the award, prefer an appea l to the High Court:

¶25

Provided that no appea l by the person who is required to p ay any amount in terms of suc h award shall be entertained by t he High Court unless he has dep o sited with it twenty-five thous a nd rupees or fifty per cent of the a mount so awarded, whicheve r is less, in the manner directed by t he High Court: Provided further that t h e High Court may entertain t he appeal after the expiry of the s aid period of ninety days, if i t is satisfied that the appellant was p revented by sufficient cause fr o m p referring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Clai m s Tribunal if the amount in disp u te in the appeal is less than [ o ne lakh] rupees.”

¶26

A perusal of the proviso to Sec t ion 173 of the Act of 1988 ma k es it crystal cl e ar that the High Court may ent e rtain the appeal after expiry of t he period of 9 0 days, if it is satisfied that t he appellants were prevented by 'sufficient cause' from preferring the appeal in time. Thus, the appellants a re required to s atisfy that there was sufficient c ause for the delay.

¶27

T he phrase 'sufficient cause' as u sed in 173 of the Act of 1998 is in pari materi a to Section 5 of the Limitation A ct, 1963 and should, therefore, be interpreted i n the same way.

¶28

T he plea that appellant No.1 is a household lady and was not d u ly informed o f the dates by her counsel canno t furnish a valid ground to cond o ne

¶29

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶30

FAO-3855-2025 (O&M)

¶31

-4-

¶32

the delay. A bare perusal of the applicat i on seeking condonation of de l ay shows that t he appellants have made only g e neral and basic statement, with o ut being bothe r ed to inquire for 9 years about t he date of hearing of the matter or whether th e matter came up hearing or n ot. A litigant cannot sleep o v er his/her brie f and lament later on to blam e others. It is a maxim in latin vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveni u nt’ that says ‘law aids the vigil a nt and not th o se who sleep over their right s ’. The appellants have failed to establish 's u fficient cause' that prevented t h em from filing the appeal wit h in the statutor y limitation period.

¶33

T he object and purpose of the st a tutes of limitation is to fix the life span of a le g al remedy so as to put an end t o every legal remedy as it is fu t ile to keep an y litigation or dispute pending i n definitely. Furthermore, it is a l so settled pro p osition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained, w hich is lacking in the case at h a nd. When mandatory provisio n is not compli e d with and delay is not proper l y, satisfactorily and convincin g ly explained, i t ought not to be condoned o n sympathetic grounds alone. T he statutory pr o vision of law of limitation ma y cause hardship or inconvenie n ce to a particu l ar party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving f ull effect to th e same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Basawraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 has obse r ved that it is a settled legal pro p osition that law for limitation m ay harshly affe c t a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour w h en the statute s o prescribes. The Court has n o power to extend the period of limitation o n equitable grounds. A result fl o wing from a statutory provisio n is never an ev i l. A court has no power to ign o re that provision to relieve wha t it considers a distress resulting from its oper a tion. The statutory provision m ay

¶34

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶35

FAO-3855-2025 (O&M) -5-

¶36

cause hard s hip or inconvenience to a par t icular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect t o the same. The legal maxim d u ra lex sed lex, which means “the law is hard but it is the law” stands attracted in such a situa t ion.

¶37

I n view of the aforesaid facts a nd circumstance, the explanat i on given by t h e appellants for not approach i ng this Court by way of inst a nt appeal with i n the period of limitation is ne i ther plausible nor convincing a nd thus, does n ot inspire the confidence of t h is Court to condone the delay of 2673 days.

¶38

C onsequently, the instant appe a l stands dismissed on the gro u nd

¶39

of delay .

¶40

(AMA RIN	DER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE
September 01, 2025
Pankaj* Whether speaking/reason ed	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶41

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.08 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Promila and Others v. Tarsem and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Promila and Others v. Tarsem and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Municipal Committee Jhajjar through Its Executive Officer Vs Gordhan Dass and Others

Rajnish Gupta and Another Vs Nitin Singla

Pal Singh Since Deceased Thorugh His Lrs Vs Varinder Singh and Others

Manpreet Kaur Vs Darshanjit Kaur and Others

Bhag Singh and Others Vs Pala Ram and Others

Swaran Singh Saggu Since Deceased through Lr Vs Mohan Kaur Rayat Alias Monee and Another