Vague pleas of financial hardship and rural background do not constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning inordinate delay.

The appellants filed an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Seventh Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in an order dated 12.05.2017

Accompanying the appeal was I.A. No. 1530/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone a delay of 219 days

The appellants argued that their rural background and financial constraints prevented them from arranging the court fee and applying for a certified copy in a timely manner

The respondent Insurance Company opposed the application, asserting that the delay was inordinate and that the explanation provided was vague and lacked material particulars

Whether the appellants established "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to warrant the condonation of a 219-day delay in filing the miscellaneous appeal

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the extension of the prescribed period of limitation if the appellant satisfies the court that they had "sufficient cause" for the delay

The court relied on Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649, which dictates that a liberal approach to condonation must not enable a party to take the law for granted or mask a lack of bona fides

It further cited Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563, which held that delay cannot be condoned mechanically in the absence of a plausible and acceptable explanation

The court reasoned that although the Motor Vehicles Act is social welfare legislation necessitating a liberal judicial approach, such an approach cannot render the Law of Limitation redundant

The court found that the appellants failed to provide specific facts or cogent material to support their claims of financial distress and rural background

It noted that since the appellants were represented by counsel before the Claims Tribunal, they could not plead complete ignorance of the award

The court concluded that the explanation offered was "general, vague, and unsupported," failing to meet the threshold of "sufficient cause" as the appellants were negligent in pursuing their legal remedy

Consequently, the court dismissed I.A. No. 1530 of 2018 (application for condonation of delay)

As the delay was not condoned, the Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation