Legal heirs cannot revive a challenge to an award their predecessor allowed to attain finality.

The appellants, the legal representatives of the deceased vehicle owner, sought to appeal the Tribunal’s 23 November 2015 award fastening liability on her in a motor accident claim.

They applied under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone a stated delay of 1,805 days, asserting that they learned of the proceedings after receiving notice of an execution petition in 2021 and filed the appeal after obtaining certified copies.

The insurer opposed the application, disputing the explanation and pointing to the deceased owner’s participation in proceedings following an earlier remand and her failure to challenge the award during her lifetime.

The Court recorded that, after accounting for the COVID-19 period, the delay was 2,521 days, not 1,805 days.

1. Whether the appellants established sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period

2. Whether the appellants’ asserted lack of knowledge of the award, and the COVID-19 period, justified condoning the delay

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a court may condone delay where the applicant establishes sufficient cause for not filing within the prescribed period; the burden is on the applicant to provide an adequate explanation.

The Court also applied the principle that legal representatives who challenge an order in that capacity step into the shoes of the deceased and do not acquire an independent right to reopen an order accepted by the deceased; their liability is limited to inherited property.

The Court stated that the COVID-19 period may be excluded where limitation had not begun when the COVID-19 period commenced, but it cannot be deducted where limitation had already expired before then.

The judgment cited no precedent.

The Court found that the deceased owner had participated in the post-remand Tribunal proceedings and remained alive for approximately six and a half years after the award, yet did not challenge it.

The appellants could pursue an appeal only as her legal representatives, so their later acquisition of knowledge did not, in the Court’s view, establish sufficient cause to challenge an award that she had not contested during her lifetime.

Further, limitation had expired before the COVID-19 period began; that period therefore could not be deducted, leaving a delay of 2,521 days. The appellants’ explanation of lack of knowledge did not justify condoning that delay.

Consequently, it dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.