FAO No. 751 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 751 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.5.2010 Jaswinder Kaur and another .. Appellants v. Rana Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellants. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The claimants are in appeal before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation on account of the death of Darshan Singh, husband and father of the appellants, in a motor vehicular accident. Along with the appeal, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 820 days in filing the appeal. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 28.10.2005, at about 10.00 A.M., Darshan Singh was driving the motor cycle and was coming from village Kheri to Sangrur. When he reached near bus stand, Majra Khurd, a dog came in front of the motor cycle and he applied brakes. The motor cycle slipped away and he fell on the metalled road and suffered injuries. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. In the claim petition, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur ( (for short, `the Tribunal') awarded Rs. 2,64,000/- as compensation. It is against this award that the appellants are before this Court. In support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submitted that the appellants could not file the appeal well in time, as the sole bread earner of the family died and applicant-appellant No. 1 was in the state of shock. The submission is submitted that the delay should not come in the way for granting substantial justice and the technicality should give way to justice. After hearing learned counsel for the applicants-appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. In D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot FAO No. 751 of 2010 [2] condone the same on sympathetic ground only. No explanation is forth-coming in the application regarding the huge delay. In view of the above, I do not find that the cause shown by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 820 days in filing the appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.5.2010 mk