Meenakshi And ANR v. Phool Chand And ORS
FAO-4558-2024 (O&M) - 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 FAO-4558-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.02.2026 Meenakshi and another ...Appellant(s) Vs.
Phool Chand and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for Mr. Sarun Hans, Advocate for the appellants.
*** NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-16930-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 284 days in 昀椀ling the appeal. The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellants in the abovesaid applica琀椀on for condona琀椀on of 284 days delay in 昀椀ling the appeal is as under:- "2. That the impugned judgment was passed on 21.08.2023 and the appellant could not contact his counsel. Therea昀琀er appellant contacted his counsel and asked about the award amount on which the pe琀椀琀椀oner was kept in dark by his counsel and in April 2024 the appellant instructed the same counsel to get 昀椀le an appeal against the impugned award before Hon'ble High Court. The appellant being in state of depression due to the pain, mental agony su昀昀ered by him from the aforesaid accident, remained ill and he does not have any knowledge about the technicali琀椀es of law and when the appellant in May 2024,
FAO-4558-2024 (O&M) - 2enquired about the status of appeal from other counsel, he got to know that the same has not been 昀椀led by his previous counsel.
3. That the counsel for the appellant applied for cer琀椀昀椀ed copy on dated 14.5.2024 and received on 15.05.2024 of the aforesaid award which clearly shows that the delay of 284 days in 昀椀ling the present appeal has occurred which is neither inten琀椀onal nor willful but due to the reason men琀椀oned above." The said reason is vague and does not cons琀椀tute su昀케cient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 284 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, 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. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 284 days. Present applica琀椀on accordingly stands dismissed.
FAO-4558-2024 (O&M) - 3FAO-4558-2024 (O&M) The present appeal has been 昀椀led by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa琀椀on of Rs.18,91,400/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereina昀琀er referred to as "the learned Tribunal") passed in MACT Pe琀椀琀椀on No. 124 dated 05.05.2016; as also to the parents of the deceased who had 昀椀led separate Claim Pe琀椀琀椀on bearing MACT Pe琀椀琀椀on No. 179 dated 02.07.2016; vide common Award dated 21.08.2023 昀椀led under Sec琀椀ons 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereina昀琀er referred to as "the Act"). The 2 claimants are the 25-yearold widow; and minor child of the deceased Jai Parkash, who was 20 years old at the 琀椀me of accident.
Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceasedJai Parkash had died due to the injuries su昀昀ered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.01.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registra琀椀on No. GJ-12AY-8569 (hereina昀琀er "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. All the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensa琀椀on. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensa琀椀on by submi琀�ng that income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side as only Rs.8,000/- p.m.; whereas the appellant had proven on record that the deceased was a Motor Mechanic and was earning about
FAO-4558-2024 (O&M) - 4Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further submi琀琀ed that at least Rs.1 lac ought to have been granted for funeral expenses; and Rs.50,000/- for transporta琀椀on. It is further prayed that Rs.2 lacs each should be awarded on account of loss of love and a昀昀ec琀椀on; Rs.1 lac for loss of estate; and Rs.2 lacs for consor琀椀um. Rate of interest should be 18% instead of 9%. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and compensa琀椀on be enhanced as above. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensa琀椀on be enhanced in above terms.
No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case 昀椀le in great detail. I 昀椀nd no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.
6.
It was the pleaded case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that prior to the accident, deceased was working as a Motor Mechanic and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Present claimant/appellant No.1 had appeared as PW1 and categorically stated that the deceased was working as Motor Mechanic in auto market and was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. It is to be noted that in the connected Claim Pe琀椀琀椀on No. 179 dated 02.07.2016, 昀椀led by parents of the deceased, it has been claimed that deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. Thus, there is disparity in the income of the deceased as claimed by the Claimants themselves. Nonetheless, the appellants have failed to produce any evidence in this regard. No proof of avoca琀椀on or income was produced by the
FAO-4558-2024 (O&M) - 5claimants. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as a daily wager as Rs.8,000/- p.m. I 昀椀nd no error in the same. 7.
Further, age of the deceased was determined to be 20 years at the 琀椀me of accident on the basis of his Post Mortem Report. Accordingly, learned Tribunal had correctly made an addi琀椀on of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly applied mul琀椀plier of 18. As there were 4 claimants in all in both the Claim Pe琀椀琀椀ons, learned Tribunal had correctly made a deduc琀椀on of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Under the conven琀椀onal heads, learned Tribunal had awarded Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consor琀椀um, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.16,500/- towards transporta琀椀on and funeral expenses. Accordingly, learned Tribunal has calculated the compensa琀椀on in the following manner: - Sr. No.
Heads of claim Calcula琀椀on (in Rs.) 1.
Income Rs.8,000/-p.m.
40% future prospects Rs.3,200/- Total income Rs.11,200/-p.m.
1/4th deduc琀椀on Rs.2,800/- A昀琀er deduc琀椀on, income Rs.8,400/- p.m.
6.
Annual income of the deceased Rs.8,400 x = Rs.1,00,800/- 7.
Compensa琀椀on a昀琀er applying mul琀椀plier of 18 Rs.1,00,800 X 18 = Rs.18,14,400/- 8.
Loss of consor琀椀um Rs.44,000/- 9.
Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- 10.
Transporta琀椀on and funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- 11.
Total compensa琀椀on Rs.18,91,400/- 8.
From the above facts, it is clear that just and fair compensa琀椀on has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the
FAO-4558-2024 (O&M) - 6compensa琀椀on granted to the appellants. 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. 9.
The Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (SC) 2013(5) Scale 160; Law Finder Doc ID # 421379 has further gone on to hold that: "Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec琀椀on 168 - Sec琀椀on 168 provides that amount of compensa琀椀on awarded by the Claims Tribunal which appears to it to be just - The expression, 'just' means that the amount so determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards and not a forensic lo琀琀ery - Obviously 'just compensa琀椀on' does not mean 'perfect' or 'absolute' compensa琀椀on - The just compensa琀椀on principle requires examina琀椀on of the par琀椀cular situa琀椀on obtaining uniquely in an individual case."
10.
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.
11.
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