Manphool (Now Deceased) through Lrs Vs Charanjeet Singh and Another

The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellants in the abovesaid applica(on for condona(on of 552 days delay in re)ling the appeal is as under:-

¶14

“2. That the present appeal was �led with in limita�on but the registry raised certain objec�ons on 21.04.2024 and again objec�ons on 07.06.2024 the case was returned back to the counsel. The clerk of the counsel for the appellant inadvertently placed the paper book of the present appeal in some other brief during shi$ing the residence. It only came to know when the appellant contacted his counsel for her case, only then the paper book of the present appeal was located by the clerk of the counsel for the appellant.�led on 21.12.2024 and again raised

¶15

DIVYANSHI 2026.02.13 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

FAO-228-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶17

objec�ons by the registry and correc�on of delay in re-�ling days. ”

¶18

The said reason is vague and does not cons(tute su0cient

¶19

cause to condone extraordinary delay of 552 days in re)ling the present appeal.

¶20

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 (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 it is held that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathema(cal manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellant. No cogent reason or plausible explana(on has been furnished by the applicant for condona(on of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in )ling the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condona(on of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limita(on obsolete/redundant, without any jus()ca(on.

¶21

As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 552 days. Present applica(on accordingly stands dismissed .

¶22

CM-808-CII-2025

¶23

Prayer in this applica(on )led under Sec(on 5 of the Limita(on Act read with Sec(on 151 CPC is for condona(on of delay of 228 days in )ling the accompanying appeal.

¶24

The reasons given by the applicants/appellants in the present applica(on seeking condona(on of delay of 228 days are as under:-

¶25

DIVYANSHI 2026.02.13 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

FAO-228-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

¶27

“2. That the award under challenge for enhancement was passed on 22.04.2022. Therea$er cer��ed copy of the same was applied on 03.08.2022 and cer��ed copy was prepared on 05.08.2022 and same was delivered on 06.08.2022. As there is 90 days �me prescribed in the act for �ling the appeal before this Hon'ble Court. That the husband of appellant was su0ered grievous injuries on her husband as his le$ hip was also operated upon. The witness has further deposed that vide disability cer��cate Ex.P7 his permanent disability was assessed as 30% disable and mentally and physically not well a$er the accident and was not recovered. A$er the death of her husband,appellant no.1 is contact his counsel but no any reply or not contact me. Appellant is applied cer��ed copy of award through counsel and applicant/appellant no.1 applied cer��ed copy of award and to approach this Hon'ble Court in �me to �le appeal and thus delay of 228 days occurred in �ling the appeal. Due to the above said reasons the appeal could not �led in prescribed �me. So the delay of 228 days has occurred in �lling the present appeal.”

¶28

The above said reason does not cons(tute su0cient cause for

¶29

condoning the extraordinary and inordinate delay of 228 days in )ling the appeal. Hence, the present applica(on stands dismissed.

¶30

F AO-228-2025 (O&M)

¶31

The present appeal has been )led by the LRs of the injuredclaimant seeking enhancement of compensa(on of 98,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (for short “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 22.04.2022 passed in MACP Case No. 09

¶32

dated 04.01.2019 )led under Sec(on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶33

DIVYANSHI 2026.02.13 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

FAO-228-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

¶35

It is to be noted that the injured-claimant before the learned Tribunal had expired on 10.07.2022. The present appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. 48-year-old widow; 21-year old daughter; 23-yearold daughter; and 22-year-old son of the injured (now deceased).

¶36

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the par(es concluded that the injured-claimant (now deceased) had suEered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 10.05.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of an Ac(va bearing registra(on No. HR-02AE-9545 (hereinaGer “the oEending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; and owned by respondent No.2. The said compensa(on was awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Both the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensa(on. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has awarded very meager compensa(on of Rs.98,000/-. It is submiJed that the injured-claimant had duly proved at the (me of accident that he was drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- p.m. it was also proved that injured had spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment. Injured had even suEered 30% permanent disability in the accident in ques(on which was duly proved from the Disability Cer()cate Ex. P7. Yet, learned Tribunal has awarded very less amount towards loss of earning, loss of income, future income, special diet and aJendant charges, pain and suEering. It is submiJed that the injured had remained hospitalized from 10.05.2018 to 30.05.2018; and thereaGer also remained bed ridden for a long (me and he was not in a posi(on to do his work properly. Interest @ 7.5% per annum is

¶37

DIVYANSHI 2026.02.13 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

FAO-228-2025 (O&M) - 5 -

¶39

on the lower side and it should be 18%. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensa(on be enhanced in above terms.

¶40

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

¶41

From the record, it is nowhere clear as to what was the avoca(on of the claimant prior to the accident. Thus, there is no proof whatsoever of income of the claimant. Further, in the memo of par(es before the learned Tribunal, age of the injured was men(oned as 45 years. Thus, at the (me of accident, injured was 45 years. As per the evidence/discharge summary Ex.P6, in the accident, the injured had suEered fracture in his right hip for which he was operated. Appellant had also produced medical bills Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 for an amount of Rs.21,009/only. Thus, claimant was unable to prove the conten(on that medical expenses of more than Rs.1,50,000/- were incurred. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had reimbursed medical expenses to the tune of Rs.22,000/(rounded oE).

¶42

The injured had produced PW2 Dr. Ambrish, Senior Medical O0cer, Community Health Centre, District Yamuna Nagar, who had proved Disability Cer()cate Ex.P7 and had deposed that the injured was 30% disabled. However, as per the Disability Cer()cate, appellant was also pa(ent of rheumatoid arthri(s. Thus, it was not conclusively proven that 30% disability of the appellant was from the fracture suEered by him in the

¶43

DIVYANSHI 2026.02.13 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

FAO-228-2025 (O&M) - 6 -

¶45

accident in ques(on. Taking into account all the above factors, learned

¶46

Tribunal had awarded compensa(on in the following manner:-

¶47

Sr.	Nature	Amount
No.
1.	Medical Expenses	Rs.22,000/-
2.	Pain & SuEerings/Disability	Rs.40,000/-
3.	Nutri(ous diet	Rs.6,000/-
4.	AJendant Charges	Rs.10,000/-
5.	Transporta(on Charges	Rs.20,000/-
	Total amount of CompensaBon	Rs.98,000/-

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellants has also admiJed that the

¶49

injured-claimant has expired on 10.07.2022; whereas present appeal has

¶50

been )led in the year 2025 by the LRs of the injured. For this reason as

¶51

well, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award.

¶52

From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensa(on has been awarded to the injured. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensa(on granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a bene)cial legisla(on yet, as cau(oned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of pro)t. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur” Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva She)y and another” (2003) 7 SCC 197 , has held that the amount of compensa(on should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of pro)t but at the same (me it should not be a piJance.

¶53

DIVYANSHI 2026.02.13 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶54

FAO-228-2025 (O&M) - 7 -

¶55