Parents’ Appeal For Higher Compensation After Son’s Death Dismissed Over Unexplained 2,776-Day Delay: Karnataka HC

The appellants challenged the MACT award dated 2 January 2017 in MVC No. 417/2015, which awarded ₹1,38,000 for the death of appellant No. 1’s son in a road accident.

They filed the appeal on 7 November 2024 and sought condonation of delay, attributing it to appellant No. 1’s ill-health and residence near a forest area, which allegedly prevented him from contacting counsel.

Although the application stated a delay of 2,060 days, the Court calculated the delay as 2,776 days after accounting for the 716-day COVID-19 exclusion.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is established, but the discretion is not automatic; it must be exercised consistently with the statutory limitation regime.

Relying on Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), (2024) 12 SCC 336, the Court noted that, although Section 5 may be applied liberally, delay may still be refused where it is inordinate or reflects negligence or want of due diligence; the merits of the underlying case are not to be considered when deciding condonation.

The Court also relied on Thirunagalingam v. Lingeshwaran, Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 17575 of 2023), and the principles cited there that delay cannot be condoned merely as an act of generosity or on equitable grounds in the absence of an adequately explained cause.

The fact that the claim arose under the benevolent Motor Vehicles Act did not dispense with the requirement to establish sufficient cause.

The appellants’ explanation did not identify the nature or duration of appellant No. 1’s ill-health, nor explain how it prevented him from contacting counsel throughout the period of delay.

Residence near a forest area was also insufficient to account for a delay of 2,776 days.

The Court considered that the appellant was responsible for keeping informed about the result of the claim and found that the failure to file the appeal in time demonstrated negligence and a lack of due diligence.

As sufficient cause was not established, the Court did not examine the merits of the compensation appeal.

It dismissed I.A. No. 1/2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.