Satyavir And Others v. Om Parkash And Others
FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
116-2 FAO-761-2024 (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-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 Act is for condona琀椀on of delay of 271 days in 昀椀ling the appeal. 2.
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: - "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."
FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -2 - 3.
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. 4.
As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 271 days. Present applica琀椀on accordingly stands dismissed. FAO-761-2024 (O&M) 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.
2.
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;
FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -3 - 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.
3.
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. 4.
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. 5.
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.
FAO-761-2024 (O&M) -4 - 6.
Although in the Claim Pe琀椀琀椀on, deceased was stated to be 40 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).
7.
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. 8.
Pending applica琀椀on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 15.12.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No