Anand Upadhyay vs Kamalkishore And Others

Hirdesh, J

Heard on I.A. No. 6355 of 2025, which is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking the condonation of delay in filing the Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dated 08-02-2024 passed by the Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Vidisha, in MACC No. 40 of 2023, whereby the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim case of the appellant.

The appellant, in his application for condonation of delay, contends that the impugned Award was passed by the Claims Tribunal on 08-02-2024, and the present Miscellaneous Appeal was filed on 18-08-2025. The appellant, a rural villager from a poor family, claims that he had to borrow money from relatives at a high-interest rate to file the appeal. He contends that due to his lack of awareness of the legal process and the complexities of filing an appeal against the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, there was a delay of 464 days in filing the appeal. The appellant further submits that he approached his counsel after managing to arrange the necessary funds, and after preparation of the appeal, it was finally filed on 18-08-2025. The appellant’s counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Rameshwar alias Ramesh Chandra Sharma (D) through Legal Heir and Another, Civil Appeal Nos. 8331-8345 of 2022, decided on 17th November 2022, to support the plea for condonation of delay. It is argued that the delay is neither willful nor intentional and that the appellant’s inability to understand the legal intricacies and his poor financial condition should be considered as sufficient cause for the delay.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application for condonation of delay. The respondents argue that the appellant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The respondents submit that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is dated 08-02-2024, and there has been a considerable delay in filing the appeal without any justifiable reason. The respondents further contend that the appellant’s claim of financial constraints and ignorance of legal proceedings cannot be considered as valid grounds for condonation of delay. They argue that even if the appellant was unaware of the legal process, it is well-settled that ignorance of law is not a valid excuse, and the appellant should have made an effort to consult legal counsel earlier. The respondents contend that the delay in filing the appeal is not sufficiently explained and, therefore, should not be condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present application seeks the condonation of delay of 464 days in filing the Miscellaneous Appeal. The appellant has explained the delay by stating that he is a rural villager belonging to a poor family, and his financial condition did not allow him to immediately approach a lawyer or file the appeal. It is also stated that the appellant was unaware of the legal process for filing an appeal against the impugned award, which contributed to the delay. However, the law governing the condonation of delay is well-settled. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 1233], clarified that while the Court should adopt a liberal approach to condoning delays, this is not an absolute rule. The applicant must show that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay and that it was not caused by mere negligence or lack of diligence. The applicant’s financial hardship and ignorance of the law, though unfortunate, cannot be accepted as a valid ground for condonation of delay unless accompanied by adequate evidence that such circumstances genuinely prevented timely filing. There must be a reasonable cause for the delay, which cannot be merely attributed to lack of awareness or funds. While the appellant’s claim of poverty is acknowledged, it is important to note that the delay in this case spans several months, and the appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he made diligent efforts to file the appeal as soon as he was able to arrange funds. The appellant's financial situation, while unfortunate, does not absolve him from adhering to the statutory time limits set under the law. The Court cannot condone delay indefinitely merely because a party faces financial difficulty or is unaware of legal procedures.

In light of the established legal principles and the facts of the case, the Court finds that the delay of 464 days in filing the appeal has not been sufficiently explained by the appellant. The appellant’s claims of poverty and ignorance of the legal process, while sympathetic, do not constitute valid grounds for condoning such an extensive delay in filing the appeal. In the result, I.A. No.6355 of 2025 is dismissed and the instant miscellaneous appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.