Dismissed¶¶36

Satyavir and Others v. Om Parkash and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2025FAO/761/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident death compensation enhancement appeal dismissed; condonation of 271-day filing delay refused (each day's delay to be explained; Shivamma 2025 INSC 1104 relied on); notional income of unskilled worker at Rs.9,700/- p.m. sustained where claimed Rs.17,000/- p.m. income unproved; Tribunal computation affirmed (age 49 per Aadhaar, 25% future prospects, 1/3 deductions, multiplier 13, conventional heads); MACT Narnaul Award 08.02.2023 under S.166 MV Act maintained at Rs.13,31,260/- with 7.5% interest, joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Condonation refused: the sole reason pleaded (that the appellants learnt of the limitation period only in the last week of January 2024) is vague and constitutes no sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay of 271 days; the CM application is dismissed. ¶¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 271 days in filing FAO-761-2024 (O&M) should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (CM-2720-CII-2024). +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Each day's delay must be explained; in so deciding, the Court places reliance on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

Since no evidence besides PW1's self-serving statement proved the deceased's alleged employment or income of Rs.17,000/- p.m. (no Bank Passbook or account statements produced), the Tribunal's assessment of notional income at Rs.9,700/- p.m. per prevailing unskilled wages stands, and the plea that income was taken on the lower side fails.ratio¶¶31
Computation upheld: age 49 on date of accident per Aadhar Card Ex.R2 (DOB 15.07.1972); 25% added towards future prospects (monthly income Rs.12,125/-); 1/3 deducted towards personal expenses for 3 claimants (annual dependency Rs.97,020/-); multiplier 13 applied (Rs.12,61,260/-); plus Rs.40,000/- loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- funeral expenses, totalling Rs.13,31,260/-.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana HC (Nidhi Gupta, J.), FAO-761-2024 (O&M), decided 15.12.2025 — Enhancement appeal under S.166 MV Act against MACT Narnaul Award dt. 08.02.2023 (MACP Case No. 312 dated 31.08.2021) granting Rs.13,31,260/- with 7.5% interest for the death of Bimla Devi (49) in the accident of 13.08.2021 involving Truck/Trailer RJ-42GA-3765 (respondent No.1 driver, No.2 owner, No.3 insurer, jointly and severally liable). (i) CM-2720-CII-2024 for condonation of 271 days' delay dismissed: the plea of ignorance of the limitation period was vague and no sufficient cause; each day's delay must be explained, relying on Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104. (ii) Appeal dismissed: the claimed income of Rs.17,000/- p.m. was unproved save PW1's self-serving statement (no bank passbook/account statements); notional income of Rs.9,700/- p.m. (unskilled wages) upheld; age 49 per Aadhar Card Ex.R2 (DOB 15.07.1972); 25% future prospects; 1/3 deductions; multiplier 13; consortium Rs.40,000/-, loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, funeral Rs.15,000/- — award in accordance with law, no interference.

¶1

FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

116-2

¶4

FAO-761-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2025

¶5

Satyavir and others

¶6

...Appellant(s)

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Om Parkash and others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

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

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-2720-CII-2024

Prayer in this applica琀椀on 昀椀led under Sec琀椀on 5 of the Limita琀椀on

¶16

Act is for condona琀椀on of delay of 271 days in 昀椀ling the appeal.

¶17

The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant in the abovesaid applica琀椀on for condona琀椀on of 271 days delay in 昀椀ling the appeal is as under: -

¶18

“3. That the appellants was not aware about the period of limita琀椀on to 昀椀le 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 琀椀me appeal becomes barred by limita琀椀on of 271 days and the undersigned counsel without any further delay 昀椀led the appeal in this Hon'ble Court for enhancement of the compensa琀椀on.”

¶19

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

¶20

FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -2 -

¶21

The above cited reason is vague and does not cons琀椀tute su昀케cient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 271 days in 昀椀ling 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 琀椀tled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025.

¶22

As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 271 days. Present applica琀椀on accordingly stands dismissed .

¶23

FAO-761-2024 (O&M)

¶24

The present appeal has been 昀椀led by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa琀椀on of Rs.13,31,260/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereina昀琀er “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 08.02.2023 passed in MACP Case No. 312 dated 31.08.2021 昀椀led under Sec琀椀on 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, (hereina昀琀er “the Act”). The 3 claimants are the 46-year-old husband; 17-year-old daughter; and 15year-old daughter of deceased Bimla Devi, who was 49 years old at 琀椀me of accident.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceasedBimla Devi had died due to the injuries su昀昀ered by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 13.08.2021 due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck/Trailer bearing registra琀椀on No. RJ-42GA-3765 (hereina昀琀er “the o昀昀ending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1;

¶26

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

¶27

FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -3 -

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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 40 years old and doing a private job in Bakhtawar Oil Mill, Jamalpur and was ge琀�ng salary of Rs.17,000/- p.m. However, a perusal of the record shows that except for the self-serving statement of claimant No.1/husband of the deceased as PW1, no evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellants to prove the said alleged employment or income of the deceased. Even no Bank Passbook or statement of account of the deceased, et cetera was produced to show that any such salary was being received by the deceased. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had assessed no琀椀onal income of the deceased as Rs.9,700/- p.m. as per the prevailing wages for the unskilled workers.

¶32

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

¶33

FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -4 -

¶34

Although in the Claim Pe琀椀琀椀on, deceased was stated to be 40

¶35

years old however, as per Aadhar Card Ex.R2, her date of birth is men琀椀oned as 15.07.1972. As such, on the date of accident i.e. 13.08.2021, deceased was 49 years old. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had made addi琀椀on of 25% towards future prospects; thereby calcula琀椀ng monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,125/- (Rs.9,700+Rs.2,425). As there were 3 claimants, learned Tribunal had correctly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses; thereby calcula琀椀ng annual dependency to be Rs.97,020/- (Rs.12,125-Rs.4,040 X 12). Learned Tribunal had correctly applied mul琀椀plier of 13; thereby calcula琀椀ng compensa琀椀on to be Rs.12,61,260/- (Rs.97,020 X 13). Learned Tribunal had further awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consor琀椀um; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; thereby gran琀椀ng total compensa琀椀on of Rs.13,31,260/- (Rs.12,61,260 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000).

¶36

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

¶37

Pending applica琀椀on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶38

15.12.2025

¶39

Divyanshi

¶40

(NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE

¶41

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

¶42

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

Satyavir and Others v. Om Parkash and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyavir and Others v. Om Parkash 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

Smt Amrita Vs Yashpal Virmani and Ors.

Sarb Alliance Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gurpreet Kaur Sapra

Sukhwinder Kumar Kalia Vs Jagtar Singh and Ors.

Farjana and Others Vs Babu Lal and Another

Satyavir and Others Vs Om Parkash and Others

Gurpreet Singh Vs Maninder Singh IPS