Satyavir and Others Vs Om Parkash and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Satyavir and Others Vs Om Parkash and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 272 days in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (CM-2719-CII-2024). +1 more

Court's answer

The sole reason advanced for the 272-day delay (that the appellants were unaware of the period of limitation until late January 2024) was vague and did not constitute sufficient cause; the condonation application CM-2719-CII-2024 was dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

It is a cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained; in this regard reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Shivamma (2025 INSC 1104).

Key takeaways

Income of the deceased was correctly taken at Rs.11,500/- p.m.: the claimants examined Vijay Singh, Supervisor of Dishu International Company (PW2), who proved the Attendance Register Ex.PW2/A, salary slips Ex.PW2/B and appointment letter Ex.PW3/C showing net pay of Rs.11,326/- p.m., corroborated by the deceased's Bank Passbook Ex.P14; the claimants failed to prove the pleaded income of Rs.25,000/- p.m.ratio¶34
The Tribunal's computation was correct: 40% was added towards future prospects (monthly income Rs.16,100/-), 50% was deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was unmarried (annual dependency Rs.96,600/-), multiplier of 18 was applied yielding Rs.17,38,800/-, plus Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling Rs.18,08,800/-.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta, J.), FAO-760-2024 (O&M), decided 15.12.2025 — Claimants' appeal for enhancement of a Rs.18,08,800/- award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (Award dated 08.02.2023, MACP Case No. 313, under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act) for the death of 21-year-old Ajay Kumar is dismissed. The employer's Supervisor (PW2) proved net pay of Rs.11,326/- p.m. through the attendance register, salary slips and appointment letter, corroborated by the deceased's bank passbook; the pleaded income of Rs.25,000/- p.m. was not proved, so the Tribunal's assessment of Rs.11,500/- p.m., addition of 40% towards future prospects, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses (deceased unmarried), multiplier of 18, and conventional heads were all found correct. The connected application CM-2719-CII-2024 for condonation of 272 days' delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also dismissed: the cited reason was vague and did not constitute sufficient cause, each day's delay having to be explained, with reliance on Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104. Pending applications disposed of.

FAO-760-2024 (O&M) -1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

116 FAO-760-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2025

Satyavir and others

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Om Parkash and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Mr. Vijay Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-2719-CII-2024

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act is for condonation of delay of 272 days in filing the appeal.

The only reason cited by learned counsel for the

applicant/appellant in the abovesaid application for condonation of 272 days delay in filing the appeal is as under: -

“3. That the appellants was not aware about the period of limitation to file the appeal and came to know about the same in the last week of January 2024 and then applicant-Appellants approached the undersigned counsel and in the mean time appeal becomes barred by limitation of 272 days and the undersigned counsel without any further delay filed the appeal in this Hon'ble Court for enhancement of the compensation.”

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.15 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-760-2024 (O&M) -2 -

The above cited reason is vague and does not constitute sufÏcient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 272 days in filing the present appeal. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reliance may also be placed upon recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025.

As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 272 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed .

FAO-760-2024 (O&M)

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.18,08,800/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 08.02.2023 passed in MACP Case No. 313 dated 31.08.2021 filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter “the Act”). The 3 claimants are the 46-year-old father; 17-year-old sister; and 15-year-old sister of the deceased Ajay Kumar, who was 21 years old at time of accident.

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceasedAjay Kumar had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 13.08.2021 due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck/Trailer bearing registration No. RJ-42GA-3765 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1;

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.15 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-760-2024 (O&M) -3 -

owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The Tribunal awarded above said compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. All the respondents were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

The only ground on which learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation is that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side. It is accordingly prayed that present Appeal be allowed; and the compensation be modified.

No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard ld. Counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants.

Perusal of the record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that prior to the accident, deceased was doing a private job in Dishu International (TVS) at IMT Manesar, Gurugram and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. A perusal of the record shows that to prove the said avocation and income of the deceased, the claimants had examined Vijay Singh, Supervisor, Dishu International Company as PW2, who had proved the Attendance Register Ex.PW2/A; salary slips Ex.PW2/B; appointment letter Ex.PW3/C, from which it was proven that the deceased was receiving net pay of Rs. 11,326/- p.m. and had received Rs.16,170/- for the month of July 2021. As per the Bank Passbook Ex.P14 of the deceased, he had received a sum of Rs.11,298/- in his account for the month of May 2021 and Rs.11,326/- for the month of July 2021 et cetera. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had taken

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.15 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-760-2024 (O&M) -4 -

income of the deceased as Rs.11,500/- p.m. I find no error in the same. Thus, claimants have failed to show anything to prove that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. Further age of the deceased was proved to be 21 years old on the date of accident on the basis of his Aadhar Card Ex.P12; wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 10.04.2000. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had made addition of 40% towards future prospects; thereby calculating monthly income of the deceased as Rs.16,100/(Rs.11,500+Rs.4,600). As deceased was unmarried, learned Tribunal had correctly deducted 50% towards personal expenses; thereby calculating annual dependency to be Rs.96,600/- (Rs.16,100-Rs.8,050 X 12). Learned Tribunal had correctly applied multiplier of 18; thereby calculating compensation to be Rs.17,38,800/- (Rs.96,600 X 18). Tribunal had further awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection; Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate; and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; thereby granting total compensation of Rs.18,08,800/- (Rs.17,38,800 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000).

Thus, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in accordance with law. As such, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. The present Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

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

15.12.2025

Divyanshi

(NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.15 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document