Sachin Gupta v. Kuldeep Singh And Others

FAO-1988-2024 (O&M) - 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 FAO-1988-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.02.2026 Sachin Gupta ...Appellant(s) Vs.

Kuldeep Singh and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-7604-CII-2024 Prayer in this applica琀椀on 昀椀led under Sec琀椀on 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Sec琀椀on 5 of the Limita琀椀on Act and S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is for condona琀椀on of delay of 415 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 415 days delay in 昀椀ling the appeal is as under:- "2. That the delay of 415 days in 昀椀ling the present appeal occurred on account of the fact that appellant is poor person and he was the only earning member of family. Appellant was le昀琀 with no money for the purpose of 昀椀ling the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court. Moreover the appellant has su昀昀ered injury and is disabled person and due to disability was unable to engage any counsel. The amount awarded by Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not su昀케cient for the applicant/appellant as he is not able to earn due to his

FAO-1988-2024 (O&M) - 2permanent disability. And in the present appeal due to the said permanent disability of the applicant he was not able to 昀椀le an appeal earlier."

3.

The said reason is vague and does not cons琀椀tute su昀케cient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 415 days in 昀椀ling the present appeal.

4.

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 琀椀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琀椀cal manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellant. No cogent reason or plausible explana琀椀on has been furnished by the applicant for condona琀椀on of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in 昀椀ling the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condona琀椀on of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limita琀椀on obsolete/redundant, without any jus琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on. 5.

As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 415 days. Present applica琀椀on accordingly stands dismissed. FAO-1988-2024 (O&M) The present appeal has been 昀椀led by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensa琀椀on of Rs.3,67,790/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short "the learned

FAO-1988-2024 (O&M) - 3Tribunal") vide Award dated 01.12.2022 passed in MACP Case No. 167 dated 07.08.2018 昀椀led under Sec琀椀on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2.

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the par琀椀es concluded that the appellant had su昀昀ered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.06.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Car bearing registra琀椀on No. HR-23F-1212 (hereina昀琀er referred to as "the o昀昀ending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The above said compensa琀椀on was awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. Liability to pay compensa琀椀on was 昀椀xed upon respondent No.2 with right to recovery from respondent No.2.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensa琀椀on by submi琀�ng that while gran琀椀ng the impugned compensa琀椀on, learned Tribunal had failed to take into account that in the accident in ques琀椀on, the appellant has been rendered 10% permanently disabled. Appellant had duly proven his disability by way of Disability Cer琀椀昀椀cate. It is submi琀琀ed that prior to the accident, appellant was a Civil Engineer and was doing his work with M/s. Ram Kumar Contractor and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, due to his disability, appellant is incapable to do his work and is bedridden for so many months and also he had been released from his job on the ground of his absence; and now it is very di昀케cult to 昀椀nd a new job. Yet, nothing has been awarded to the appellant towards loss of earning. Even income of the appellant has been assessed incorrectly. Even the amounts awarded for a琀琀endant charges,

FAO-1988-2024 (O&M) - 4transporta琀椀on and special diet et cetera need to be enhanced. Nothing has been awarded to the appellant towards loss of expecta琀椀on of life or towards marriage prospects.

4.

It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensa琀椀on be enhanced in above terms.

5.

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

6.

The record reveals that the pleaded case of the appellant in the Claim Pe琀椀琀椀on was that in the accident, appellant had "Got mul琀椀ple injuries on his back, leg, knee, face and chest." As per the evidence of CW2, Jaspal Singh, Billing Head at Sarvodaya Mul琀椀 Speciality and Cancer Hospital, Hisar, appellant had remained admi琀琀ed at the said hospital from 23.06.2015 琀椀ll 01.07.2015. CW2 has also proved the bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 for a total amount of Rs.1,17,340/- (Rs.1,08,000 + Rs.9,340). Appellant had further produced original medical bills Ex.C21 to Ex.C34 for an amount of Rs.50,450/-. Learned Tribunal had accordingly granted total amount of Rs.1,67,790/- (Rs.1,08,000 + Rs.9,340 + Rs.50,450). 7.

As per the Disability Cer琀椀昀椀cate Ex.C18 dated 02.12.2015, appellant has su昀昀ered 10% disability. However in the said Disability Cer琀椀昀椀cate, it is recorded that the said 10% disability is regarding 'pain and di昀케culty in bending'. It is further observed in the said Disability Cer琀椀昀椀cate that the condi琀椀on of the appellant is likely to improve and that reassessment should be made in a period of 6 months. However, appellant

FAO-1988-2024 (O&M) - 5has admi琀琀edly failed to bring on record any reassessment report. On a Court query, learned counsel for the appellant has admi琀琀ed that no reassessment has been done.

8.

Further the pleaded case of the appellant was that the appellant was Civil Engineer and working with M/s. Ram Kumar Contractor and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, appellant had failed to bring on record any evidence in this regard. Appellant had also failed to produce his engineering degree to prove his claim that he was Civil Engineer. No proof of employment or income was produced. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal has correctly taken income of the appellant as Rs.7,500/- per month as that of a labourer; and had granted Rs.90,000/- as loss of income for one year from the date of accident. 9.

Keeping in view all the above said facts, learned Tribunal had awarded compensa琀椀on in the following manner:- Sr.

No.

Par琀椀cular of Heads Amount 1.

Medical expenses (i.e. bills Ex.C1, ex.C2 to Ex.C13 and Ex.C21 to Ex.C34) Rs.1,67,790/- 2.

Loss of income Rs.90,000/- 3.

Pain & su昀昀ering Rs.50,000/- 4.

Travelling expenses Rs.20,000/- 5.

Special diet Rs.20,000/- 6.

Expenses for a琀琀endant Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.3,67,790/- 10.

From the above facts, it is clear that in the fact and circumstances of the case, a very just and fair compensa琀椀on has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this

FAO-1988-2024 (O&M) - 6Court that would merit enhancement of the compensa琀椀on granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a bene昀椀cial legisla琀椀on yet, as cau琀椀oned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of pro昀椀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琀琀y and another" (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensa琀椀on should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of pro昀椀t but at the same 琀椀me it should not be a pi琀琀ance.

11.

Before par琀椀ng, it may also be pointed out that in respect of the accident in ques琀椀on, an FIR No. 58 dated 23.06.2015 under Sec琀椀ons 304-A/279/427 IPC at Police Sta琀椀on, Lehra was registered against respondent No.1 Kuldeep Singh. In the criminal trial, appellant had appeared a PW7 and had deposed in his examina琀椀on-in-chief that respondent No.1 was driving the o昀昀ending vehicle. However, therea昀琀er the appellant had failed to appear before the learned Trial Court and was not cross-examined. Therefore, the evidence led by the appellant could not be read into the case. Resultantly, respondent No.1 came to be acqui琀琀ed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moonak vide judgment dated 17.01.2023.

12.

Keeping in view the en琀椀rety of the above noted facts, the present Appeal is hereby dismissed on merits, as well as on grounds of delay.

FAO-1988-2024 (O&M) - 713. Pending applica琀椀on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 17.02.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No