KAMTA PRASAD SAHU vs ANUJ MINJ

1

CGHC010327412024 2026:CGHC:46436
NAFR
PRASHANT
DEWANGAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
PRASHANT
DEWANGAN
Date: 2026.11.04
18:21:32 +0530
MAC No. 1916 of 2024
Kamta Prasad Sahu S/o Dhaniram Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Post And P.S. Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Anuj Minj S/o Benetik Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Talav,
Saktipara Ambikapur, P.S. And District Ambikapur,
Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Mandir Chowk, Sindhi Colony,
Near Mama Hostel Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing
Registration C.G.-15/ C.Q.-2228)
2 - Anurag Khes S/o Astus Khes Aged About 25 Years R/o
Bilaspur Chowk Ambikapur, Tahsil And District Ambikapur
Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Kalendri Kunju Ring Road No.
02, Behind R.B. Hospital P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing
Registration C.G.-15/ C.Q.-2228)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For Respondents : Notice unserved

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
03/11/2026
1.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2024, application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing
the appeal.
2. The appellant/claimant have preferred the present appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
assailing the award dated 19/07/2019 passed by the
Eighth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in
Claim Case No.651/2018, whereby the learned Claims
Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,76,234/- as
compensation for the injury of Kamta Prasad Sahu, who
injured in a road accident which took place on
15/04/2018.
3. The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
4. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 1073 days.
5. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the claimant
was duly represented before the Tribunal through a learned
counsel. The award was passed on 19/07/2019. However,
no steps were taken by the claimant to prefer the present
appeal within the period prescribed under law.

3
6.
In the application seeking condonation of delay, it has been
pleaded that the appellant was not aware of the legal
proceedings or the requirement to prefer an appeal before
this Hon’ble Court. Further, during the COVID-19
pandemic, court proceedings remained suspended. After
the situation returned to normal, the appellant contacted
his local counsel, who advised him to prefer an appeal
before this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly, the appellant
applied for a certified copy of the impugned award and,
upon receipt thereof, proceeded to file the present appeal.
Hence, the present appeal has been filed with delay.
7. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H.
Guruswamy & Ors. vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by
Lrs reported in (2025) 1 SCR 764 held that courts cannot
use a “liberal approach” to condone inordinate &
unjustified delays caused by a party’s own negligence.
Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced
herein below:-
13. We are at our wits end to understand why the
High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects.
What was the good reason for the High Court to
ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme
Court has reminded the District judiciary as well
the High Courts that the concepts such as "liberal
approach", "Justice oriented approach",
"substantial justice" should not be employed to
frustrate or jettison the substantial law of
limitation.
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant
matter which the court must take into
consideration while considering whether the delay

4
should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the
approach of the respondents herein, it appears
that they want to fix their own period of limitation
for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for
which law has prescribed a period of limitation.
Once it is held that a party has lost his right to
have the matter considered on merits because of
his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed
to be non-deliberate delay and in such
circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to
plead that the substantial justice deserves to be
preferred as against the technical considerations.
While considering the plea for condonation of
delay, the court must not start with the merits of
the main matter. The court owes a duty to first
ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered
by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the
sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the
opposition of the other side is equally balanced
that the court may bring into aid the merits of the
matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
17. We are of the view that the question of
limitation is not merely a technical consideration.
The rules of limitation are based on the principles
of sound public policy and principles of equity. No
court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles'
hanging over the head of litigant for an indefinite
period of time.
8. The Award was passed on 19.07.2019, whereas the date of
filing is 18.09.2024, resulting in a total delay of 1,888 days.
However, after excluding the period consumed in obtaining
the certified copy of the Award and the period covered by
the COVID-19 pandemic, the remaining delay in filing
works out to 1,073 days.
9. The explanation furnished by the appellant does not inspire
confidence. The appellant has also failed to explain what
prevented them from making timely enquiries regarding the
filing of the appeal. It is, thus, evident, that the appellant
remained inactive for a period of 1073 days (almost 3

5
years), which clearly reflects a lack of due diligence in
pursuing the case. Given the substantial delay of 1073
days, the appellant has not provided sufficient justification
for the inaction.
10. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of H. Guruswamy (supra) and
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present
case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not
explained the delay properly and satisfactorily. Hence, I.A.
No.01/2024 deserve to be and is hereby rejected.
11. Consequently, the appeal, being barred by limitation, also
stands dismissed .
12. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Prashant