Nishu Devi Vs Devender Kumar and Ors.

The appellant–claimant has approached this Court seeking modifica%on of the award dated 27.05.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, limited to the quantum of compensa%on.

¶15

The facts, in brief, reveal that the appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident dated 27.11.2020, allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing registra%on No. UP-11-BJ-3261. A claim pe%%on under Sec%on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was ins%tuted against the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶16

Upon apprecia%on of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held the driver of the offending vehicle negligent and consequently awarded a sum of ₹2,19,011/- as compensa%on, fastening joint and several liability upon all the respondents.

¶17

Before adver%ng to the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to

¶18

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

FAO-4580-2025 (O&M)

¶20

deal with the applica%ons filed by the appellant seeking condona%on of delay—one for condona%on of 155 days’ delay in filing the appeal under Sec%on 5 of the Limita%on Act bearing No. CM -14475-CII-2025 , and another for condona%on of 135 days’ delay in re-filing under Sec%on 151 CPC bearing No. CM-14474-CII-2025.

¶21

Insofar as the delay of 135 days in re-filing is concerned, the explana%on furnished indicates that the delay occurred due to procedural lapses at the level of the counsel’s office, including misplacement of the case file and subsequent compliance with Registry objec%ons. It is well seBled that a li%gant should not ordinarily suffer for the fault of counsel. In view thereof, and in the interest of substan%al jus%ce, the delay in re-filing is liable to be condoned.

¶22

However, the explana%on offered for the delay of 155 days in filing the appeal does not inspire confidence. The appellant seeks to jus%fy the delay on the ground that her father became aware of the remedy of appeal only in January 2025, despite the award having been passed on 27.05.2024. This explana%on reflects a lack of due diligence. There is no material on record to demonstrate that any effort was made during the intervening period to ascertain the status of the claim pe%%on or to seek legal advice. The law of limita%on is founded on the principle that legal remedies must be pursued with reasonable promp%tude, and a casual or negligent approach cannot cons%tute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Sec%on 5 of the Limita%on Act.

¶23

Accordingly, the applica%on for condona%on of delay of 155 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be rejected as barred by limita%on.

¶24

Even otherwise, this Court has examined the maBer on merits and finds no ground warran%ng interference.

¶25

Page No. 2 of 4 Pages

¶26

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

FAO-4580-2025 (O&M)

¶28

The sole conten%on raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that although the disability cer%ficate assessed permanent disability at 10% in rela%on to the right upper limb, the learned Tribunal erroneously considered only 5% disability for the purpose of calcula%ng compensa%on and awarded ₹1,35,000/- under the head of loss of income.

¶29

This submission does not merit acceptance. A perusal of the record shows that PW-5 Dr. K.K. Bansal, who proved the disability cer%ficate, categorically deposed that the disability was temporary in nature and confined to the right upper limb. It is trite that assessment of compensa%on for disability must be based not merely on the percentage of physical disability, but on the extent to which such disability affects the earning capacity of the claimant, i.e., the concept of func%onal disability.

¶30

In the present case, the appellant was working as a laboratory helper earning ₹10,000/- per month. There is no evidence to suggest that the injury resulted in any diminu%on of her earning capacity, or that she was rendered incapable of performing her avoca%on. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal rightly refrained from trea%ng the en%re 10% limb disability as equivalent to func%onal disability affec%ng the whole body or earning capacity.

¶31

Rather, it is noteworthy that even the adop%on of 5% disability by the Tribunal appears to be on the higher side, considering that the disability was temporary and did not impact the appellant’s income. However, since no appeal has been preferred by the respondents seeking reduc%on, this Court refrains from interfering to that extent.

¶32