Sudesh Kumari and Anr. Vs Ajit Singh and Others

Pr a yer in this application filed un d er Section 5 of the Limitation A ct read with Secti o n 151 of CPC is for condonati o n of delay of 661 days in filing the accompanying a ppeal.

¶16

It i s inter alia , submitted by learne d counsel for the applicants that the delay of 661 d a ys in filing the present appeal h as occurred on account of the f act that the applic a nts are poor and rustic village r s who are not acquainted with the legal intricacie s of law. It is submitted that even the learned counsel for the applicants had m isled the applicants and regul a rly told them that their appeal i s in progress. How e ver, applicants have subseque n tly discovered that the appeal h ad not been filed. Now, the applicants have en g aged the undersigned counsel for further proceed i ngs. It is submitted that applica n ts had no means of earning and did not know the limitation period of filing the a ppeal. The delay has occurre d in

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) - 2-

¶19

arranging litiga t ion expenses. It is accordingly, prayed that the present applica t ion be allowed and t he delay of 661 days in filing t h e appeal be condoned.

¶20

He a rd.

¶21

Th e applicants have sought cond o nation of inordinate delay of 6 61 days primarily on the ground that they did not have sufficient funds; and as the learned counsel had failed to inform the applic a nts regarding filing up the appeal. However, I fin d no merit in the said submissio n s: as despite repeated Court qu e ry, the counsel fo r the applicants has failed to inform as to on what date the compensation a mount of Rs.15,00,000/- was released to the applicants. T h us, applicant has fa i led to prove that they did not h a ve sufficient funds. 5. Ev e n the second contention of the a pplicants that they were misle d by their counsel i s liable to be rejected. It is f o r the applicants to be diligen t in pursuing the a p peal. Duty lies upon the app e llants to be vigilant towards t h eir rights to pursu e litigation diligently. The appe l lants cannot totally sleep upon the matter after allegedly entrusting the same to their counsel. In this situatio n , it would be apposite to refer to judgment of the D elhi High Court in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi): Law Finder Doc Id # 887148 holding that :

¶22

“1 1 . The litigant owes a duty to b e vigilant of his rights and is a lso ex p ected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pen d ing in t he court of law against him or i n itiated at his instance. The liti g ant ca n not be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocat e . It ap p ears that the blame is being a ttributed on the Advocate wi t h a vie w to get the delay condoned a n d avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep a nd wa k e up from a deep slumber afte r passing a long time as if the c o urt is s torage of the suits filed by s u ch negligent litigants. Putting the en t ire blame upon the advocate a n d trying to make it out as if t hey

¶23

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) - 3-

¶25

we r e totally unaware of the natur e or significance of the proceed i ngs is a theory put forth by the appe l lant/applicant/defendant comp a ny, which cannot be accepted and oug h t not to have been accepted.” 6. Fu r thermore, it is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explaine d . In this regard, reference is m ade to 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, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666 , wherein it is held that each d a y’s delay has to be explained in a mathematical m anner which has not been don e by the applicants. N o cogent reason or plausible e x planation has been furnished by the applicants for c o ndonation of such an inordina t e delay in filing the accompan y ing appeal. Moreov e r, condonation of such an inor d inate delay would be tantamou n t to declaring the la w of limitation obsolete/redund a nt, without any justification. 7. As such, no ground is made out fo r condoning inordinate delay of 6 61 days. Present a p plication accordingly stands dismissed . FAO-1892-2013

¶26

Pr e sent appeal has been filed by t he claimants seeking enhance m ent of compensatio n of Rs.15,00,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as “ t he learned Tribunal”) vide A w ard dated 20.02.20 2 3 passed in MACT Claim Peti t ion No.516 dated 26.10.2021 fi led under Section 1 6 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ( h ereinafter referred to as “the A c t”). The two clai m ants are the 45-year-old mot h er and 49-year-old father of the deceased Lalit, w ho was about 22 years old at t h e time of accident. 2. Br i ef facts of the case are that th e Tribunal upon appraisal of th e of pleadings and oral and documentary evide n ce adduced by the parties h ad concluded that deceased Lalit had died due t o the injuries suffered by him i n a

¶27

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) - 4-

¶29

motor vehicula r accident that took place on 08. 0 9.2021 at 8:00 PM due to rash and negligence driv i ng of a Car bearing registration No. HR-28C-3078 (hereinafter ‘ the offending vehi c le’) being driven by responden t No.1, owned by respondent N o.2 and insured by responding No.3. In holding a s above, the learned Tribunal has primarily relie d on the evidence of eyew i tness Om Parkash/PW1/clai m ant No.2/father of t h e deceased. The above compensation has been awarded along w ith interest at the r a te of 7% per annum. The liab i lity to pay said compensation w as held to be jointl y and severely.

¶30

Ld . counsel for the appellants see k s enhancement of compensatio n by submitting tha t income of the deceased ha s been taken on the lower s i de. Moreover, the Tribunal has not awarded an y thing by way of consortium; and amounts granted under conventional heads ar e on the lower side. Even interest should have b e en @18% per annum. It is a c cordingly prayed that the pre s ent appeal be allow e d and the impugned Award be m odified.

¶31

No other argument is raised on be h alf of ld. counsel for the appella n ts. 5. I h a ve heard learned counsel and p erused the case file in detail. I f ind no merit in the s ubmissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

¶32

A perusal of the record shows t h at it was the pleaded case of the appellants befo r e the learned Tribunal that the deceased was working at M/s D ev Enterprises and was earning ₹12,500/- per mon t h. However, except for the oral and bald statement m ade by claimant No.2 Om Pa r kash/father of the deceased, w h ile appearing as P W -1, no other evidence was le d by the appellants to support t h eir said contentio n . No documentary evidence w hatsoever was produced by the appellant to su b stantiate their above contention. Accordingly, the learned Trib u nal had assessed income of the deceased as Rs.9, 7 00/- per month as per the rele v ant

¶33

TRIPTI SAINIMinimum Wag e s. 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) - 5-

¶35

Fu r ther, age of deceased was dete r mined to be 22 years at the tim e of accident on the basis of his Driving Licence E x .P10, wherein his date of birth w as mentioned as 18.10.1999.05.2001. Accordingl y , Tribunal had correctly mad e an addition of 40 % towards future prospects; and correctly applied multiplier of 18. 8. As the deceased was a Bachelo r , Tribunal had correctly made a deduction of 50% towards personal expense s . Further under the conventi o nal heads, Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1 5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expens e s; Rs.15,000/- towards loss o f estate; and Rs.3,360/- tow a rds miscellaneous e xpenses; thereby awarding tot a l compensation of Rs.15,00,0 0 0/-, as follows: -

¶36

Sr. No.	Hea ds		C alculation (in Rs.)
1.	Inco me		R a s.9,700 x 12 = Rs.1,16,400/- pe nnum r
2.	40% future prospects		R s.46,560/-
3.	50% expe deducted as nses of the decease	personal d	R R c s.1,16,400/- + Rs.46,560/-= s.1,62,960/- after deduction 50% omes toRs.81,480/-
4.	Com mult pensation after iplierof 18	applying	R s.81,480 x 18 = Rs.14,66,640/-
5.	Tran expe sportation and nses	funeral	R s.15,000/-
6.	Loss ofestate		R s.15,000/-
7.	Misc ellaneous expenses		R s.3,360/-
8.	Tota l		R s.15,00,000/-

¶37

No doubt the learned Tribunal has awarded nothing by way of consortium to t he appellants. However, it is my view that in the facts of and circumstances of the case, appellants are not entitled to enhancement of compensation.

¶38

In this regard, it is necessary t o point out that in respect of the accident in question, an FIR No.131, dated 0 9 .09.2021, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC has been registered at Police Sta t ion Sadar Rewari on the basi s of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) - 6-

¶40

statement made by eye-witness claimant No.2 – Om Parkash PW-1. Howeve r , in the abovesaid F IR respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rewari vide judgment dated 03.04.2024. The rele v ant findings of the learned JMIC in the said judgme n t are as follows:-

¶41

“5. In order to prove allegation s against accused prosecution has ex a mined only four witnesses. P W 1 Om Parkash made a state m ent th a t the accused present before the Court is not the person who h ad dri v en the offending vehicle in ras h and negligent manner and ca u sed ac c ident to his son. PW2 Hari O m had identified dead body o f his ne p hew Lalit. PW3 Rahul Khan have deposed that he does not k n ow th e accused present before the C o urt. All the prosecution witne s ses we r e declared hostile and on req u est of learned APP for State t hey ha v e been cross-examined but n o thing incriminating came in t h eir evi d ence against accused .”

¶42

A b are reading of the above facts s hows that before the learned J M IC, the claimant side has turned turtle on its pr e vious statement made before the Tribunal. Compensation of ₹15 lakhs has bee n awarded by the Tribunal to the m appellants on t h e specific and direct statemen t made by alleged eyewitness O Prakash before the Tribunal that the accident i n question had been caused du e to the rash and n egligent driving of the offen d ing vehicle by respondent N o .1. However, in complete contrast of the above s t and, before the learned JMIC, O m Prakash has tu r ned hostile and refused to id e ntify respondent no.1. No do u bt, proceedings u n der the Act have to be d e cided on the preponderance of probabilities. H o wever, this Court cannot shut i ts eyes in an ostrich like mann e r to the starkly dia m etrically opposite stance tak e n by the claimants' side in the criminal trial. T hus, no credence can be attribu t ed to the contrary statements m ade by the claimant s before the learned Tribunal. From the above noted facts, it is c l ear TRIPTI SAINIthat the claima n t side has deposed falsely befo r e the Tribunal only with a vie w to 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

FAO-1892-2025 (O&M) - 7-

¶44

get the compen s ation. It is my view that the sa i d act of the claimant side amo u nts to perjury.

¶45

I a m supported in my view by a ju d gment of this Court in “Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jeeto Devi & Others” FAO-22312014 decided on 03.12.2019, wherein it is held that: -

¶46

“( 6 ) This Court cannot loose sight of the judgment rendered by this Co u rt in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited versus Kamla Devi and others 2010(53) RCR (Civil) 651, where i n it wa s specifically held that in case a n eye witness gives totally diffe r ent ve r sion before the Court conduct i ng trial in criminal case from the statement made by the said eye witness before the Tribunal, the tes t imony of such a witness is u n worthy of being accepted and the evi d ence should be simply rejecte d . In fact, the learned Single Be n ch ca m e down heavily on such witne s s and held that the said witness is als o liable for perjury.”

¶47

Th i s Court in abovesaid judg m ent in “United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi & Others” (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 251230 has hel d that:

¶48

"5. It should still have been po s sible for the Tribunal to tak e a de c ision uninfluenced by any deci s ion that may have come before the cri m inal court. The several decisi o ns which have come about on this iss u e are to the effect that a ju d gment in a criminal court is not bi n ding on the Tribunal; the non- fi ling of a FIR is not material; e ven th e fact of involvement of the vehi c le as found by the criminal cou r t is no t binding. While the Tribunal i s competent to assess the evid e nce which is brought before it and tak e an independent decision, then the po i nt that has to be seen is wheth e r there was any evidence wort h its na m e before the Tribunal to come a finding that the particular vehicle wa s involved in the accident. It ca n be either that the version of S itar M o hd. cannot be relied for he has c ontradicted himself wholesale w ith th e version given before the cr i minal court or looked for o t her

¶49

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

FAO-1892-2025 (O&M)

¶51

- 8-

¶52

evi d ence which was placed befo r e the Court. Alternatively if a ny ex p lanation had been given by t h e witness as to why he dep o sed fal s ehood before the criminal cou r t, even such an explanation c o uld ha v e been accepted to enter a fi n ding that the accident took p l ace on ly involving the particular in s ured's vehicle. In this case, no ex p lanation has been given by the witness as to why he stated be f ore th e criminal court that he did not k now which vehicle was involve d in th e accident. He would, on the oth e r hand, defy that he ever made a ny su c h statement before the crimina l court, necessitating the state m ent made before the criminal court to be exhibited for contradic t ion be f ore the Tribunal. It must be r e membered a statement in crim i nal co u rt case by a witness is also on oath. If he was uttering falseh o od, he was liable for perjury. If the r e was contradiction between the ve r sion elicited before the Tribun a l to the statement made before the cri m inal court then such a witne s s will be unworthy of accepta n ce. Th e Tribunal could have simply re j ected the whole evidence. If it w as go i ng to pick out one line from chief examination to say that the ins u red's vehicle was involved in t h e accident, the Tribunal was d o ing so m ething which is not a judicial f u nction but a travesty of justice. ”

¶53

Le a rned counsel for the appellant s is unable to dispute or contro v ert the aforesaid fa c ts and findings. Definitely, no c ase is made out for enhanceme n t of compensation.

¶54

Th u s, the present Appeal is accor d ingly dismissed on merits, as w ell as on grounds of delay.

¶55

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶56

April 21, 2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) tripti JUDGE

¶57

Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶58

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.04.22 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sudesh Kumari and Anr. v. Ajit Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudesh Kumari and Anr. v. Ajit 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

Narender Kumar and Another Vs Krishan Kumar and Others

Bhagwan Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh and Others

Nasib Singh and Ors. Vs Anurag Rastogi and Ors.

Sukhwinderpal Singh Vs Mohinder Kaur and Others

Santosh Devi and Anr. Vs Chetan Singh and Ors.

Gurmej Singh and Another Vs Neki Ram