Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Injured Claimant’s Bid To Raise ₹2.76 Lakh Award After Unexplained 1,073-Day Delay

The appellant, injured in a road accident on 15 April 2018, was awarded ₹2,76,234 by the Eighth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, on 19 July 2019.

He appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation. The appeal was filed on 18 September 2024, and the appellant sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

He attributed the delay to lack of awareness of the appeal process and the COVID-19 pandemic, and stated that he filed after consulting local counsel and obtaining a certified copy of the award.

The Court recorded that the remaining delay, after exclusions, was 1,073 days.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown; the applicant must provide a bona fide and satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an appeal may be brought against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

Relying on H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs, (2025) 1 SCR 764, the Court reiterated that a liberal or justice-oriented approach cannot be used to defeat limitation law; the length of delay is relevant, and the court must assess the bona fides of the explanation before considering the merits of the underlying matter.

The Court found that the appellant had been represented by counsel before the Tribunal but had not taken timely steps to appeal the 2019 award.

It held that his explanation—lack of awareness, the pandemic, and later advice from local counsel—did not explain why he failed to make timely enquiries or otherwise pursue an appeal.

The resulting inactivity for 1,073 days demonstrated a lack of due diligence, and the explanation was neither convincing nor sufficient under the principles in H. Guruswamy.

Consequently, it dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and made no order as to costs.