IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.5109 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 26.10.2009 Sukhwinder Singh ...... Appellant VERSUS Gurdeep Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This appeal, preferred by the owner, is directed against the award dated 22.04.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants-respondent Nos.4 to 6 (herein referred as 'the claimants') on account of the death of Kulwant Singh in a motor vehicular accident. This appeal, being time barred is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 458 days in its filing. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he came to know about the imposition of the recovery rights upon him only on receipt of notice dated 24.10.2009. Having perused the award, it transpires that the award dated 22.04.2008 was passed only in the presence of Sh.Satnam Singh, Advocate, his counsel. The appeal has been prepared on 22.10.2009. No affidavit of Satnam Singh has been filed in order to contend that he never conveyed about the result of the case to the appellant. Since the award was pronounced in the presence of parties then the knowledge of the appellant F.A.O.No.5109 of 2009 (O&M) -2- would certainly be presumed. The allegation that he came to know about the award only on 24.10.2009 is totally false as he had filed the appeal on 22.10.2009, therefore, he must be in the knowledge of the award before hand. Thus long delay of 458 days in filing the appeal has not been properly explained and there are no sufficient grounds for condoning the same. The delay of few days or few hours could be condoned but this long delay of more than one year could not be condoned on flimsy grounds. If such delay is condoned after ignoring the law of limitation, it would completely wipe out the intention of the provision of Limitation Act and would send wrong signals to the society that any stale litigation could be entertained at any time. Consequent, the application is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal also fails. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 26.10.2009 mamta-II