[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Lokesh Kumar Dewangan vs Smt. Saraswati Kurre on 12 March, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR
TAMRAKAR Date:
2026.03.12
2026:CGHC:11772
16:58:52
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 875 of 2023
• Lokesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Lochan Prasad Dewangan Aged About 49
Years Resident Of Sadhna Sari Shop, Near Bus Stand, Kharora, Police
Station Kharora, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Magic Vehicle
No. Cg-04-T-4246)
... Appellant
versus
1. Smt. Saraswati Kurre W/o Late Ashok Kumar Kurre, Aged About 43 Years
Resident Of Village And Post - Amsena, Police Station-Palari, District -
Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)
2. Ku. Santoshi D/o Late Ashok Kumar Aged About 16 Years Minor,
Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Saraswati Bai, Resident
Of Village And Post - Amsena, Police Station-Palari, District - Balodabazar-
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Aman S/o Late Ashok Kumar Kurre Aged About 9 Years Minor,
Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Saraswati Bai, Resident
Of Village And Post - Amsena, Police Station-Palari, District - Balodabazar-
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
4. Sandeep Kumar S/o Late Ashok Kumar Kurre Aged About 5 Years Minor,
Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Saraswati Bai, Resident
Of Village And Post - Amsena, Police Station-Palari, District - Balodabazar-
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
5. Sukhram Kurre (Died And Deleted) (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 26-
11-2025 And 05-02-2026)
6. Smt. Ram Bai W/o Sukhram Kurre Aged About 60 Years Resident Of
Village And Post - Amsena, Police Station-Palari, District - Balodabazar-
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
7. Punit Ogre S/o Doulal Ogre Resident Of Kodapar, Police Station - Palari,
District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Magic Vehicle
No. Cg-04-T-4246)
8. Sukhiram Baghel S/o Tulsiram Baghel Resident Of Bhejridih, Tahsil-Tilda,
District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner And Possession Holder Of Magic
Vehicle No. Cg-04-T-4246)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant/Owner : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate holding the brief
of Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
& 6/claimants
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
12.03.2026
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2023, an application for condonation of delay.
2. The owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment
and award passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Raipur passed in Claim Case No. 694/17 dated 20.12.2022,
whereby, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.
10,28,499/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death
of Ashok Kumar Kurre.
3. The appellant herein has preferred this appeal with delay of 81 days.
4. Mr. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that due to
poverty, the owner of the offending vehicle could not deposit mandatory
security amount of Rs. 25,000/- with the concerned Tribunal, and therefore,
appeal could not be preferred within prescribed period of limitation. He
would pray to condone the delay.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would
oppose. Mr. Thakur would submit that the owner of the offending vehicle
failed to explain sufficient cause of delay in filing appeal. He would submit
that application deserves to be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for
condonation of delay with utmost circumspection.
7. Award was passed on 20.12.2022, whereas, this appeal was preferred on
13.06.2023. Record would show that the owner of the vehicle was
represented before the learned Tribunal through a counsel. A plea has
been taken that Rs. 25,000/- was deposited with the concerned Tribunal at
belated stage, but dates have not been mentioned in the application for
condonation of delay. It is nowhere stated as to when the appellant herein
managed the fund and when it was deposited. The explanation appears to
be farce.
8. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of H. Guruswamy & Ors.
Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs. 1 held courts cannot use a
"liberal approach" to condone inordinate, unjustified delays caused by a
party's own negligence. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are
reproduced herein below :-
"13. We are at our wits end to understand why the
High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What
was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all
this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has
reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts
that the concepts such as "liberal approach", "Justice
oriented approach", "substantial justice" should not be
employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of
limitation.
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant
matter which the court must take into consideration
while considering whether the delay should be
condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the
respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix
their own period of limitation for the purpose of
instituting the proceedings for which law has
prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a
party has lost his right to have the matter considered
on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it
cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in
such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to
plead that the substantial justice deserves to be
preferred as against the technical considerations.
While considering the plea for condonation of delay,
the court must not start with the merits of the main
matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the
bona fides of the explanation offered by the party
seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause
assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other
side is equally balanced that the court may bring into
aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of
condoning the delay.
1. [2025] 1 SCR 764
17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is
not merely a technical consideration. The rules of
limitation are based on the principles of sound public
policy and principles of equity. No court should keep
the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of
litigant for an indefinite period of time.
9. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of H. Guruswamy (supra), in
the opinion of this Court, the claimants have not explained the delay
properly, therefore the application for condonation of delay [I.A. No. 1/2023]
is liable to be and is hereby rejected.
10. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
$iddhant
