Vague assertions of poverty and lack of counsel communication do not constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning inordinate delay.

The appellant-claimant filed a Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of a compensation award of Rs. 3,35,394/- passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaura on 05.11.2022.

The statutory limitation period of 90 days expired on 03.02.2023, but the appeal was filed on 05.10.2023, resulting in a delay of 244 days.

The appellant filed I.A. No. 6865 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing his status as a "poor and rustic villager," health ailments following the accident, and a lack of communication with his counsel as grounds for the delay.

Whether the appellant established "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the inordinate delay of 244 days in filing the appeal.

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It relied on the principle from *Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy* (2013), which establishes that while a liberal approach is preferred to adjudicate disputes on merits, it cannot be used to take the law for granted or excuse a lack of bona fides.

Further, it cited *Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.* (2012), holding that in the absence of a plausible and acceptable explanation, delay cannot be condoned mechanically.

The Court observed that while the Motor Vehicles Act is social welfare legislation warranting a liberal approach, the term "sufficient cause" cannot render limitation laws redundant.

In this instance, the Court found the appellant's claims—poverty, rustic background, and lack of communication—to be "vague and stereotyped" assertions lacks specific details or documentary evidence.

The Court noted that the appellant was represented by counsel during the original Tribunal proceedings and was therefore aware of the case; thus, he failed to account for the entire period of delay or disclose compelling circumstances that prevented him from approaching the Court within the 90-day window.

Consequently, the Court held that a valuable right had accrued to the Insurance Company which could not be disturbed without a cogent explanation.

I.A. No. 6865 of 2023 was dismissed, and subsequently, the Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.