IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.12005-CII of 2007 and FAO. NO.2389 OF 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 27.3.2009 Jagjit Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) Versus Iqbal Singh and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mrs. Jaspal Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred after a delay of 6 years and 37 days. Appellants-claimants, who are the widow and two married sons of deceased Darshan Singh, who at the age of 56 years, died in a motor vehicular accident on 29.1.1999 involving his Scooter and Bus No.PB- 30B/9002 (hereinafter to be referred as “the offending bus”) owned by the respondents-Punjab Roadways, have challenged the award dated 22.11.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala whereby a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- was awarded as compensation (5000 x 12 x 4) to appellant No.1-widow (aged 52 years) only along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 6 years and 37 days, the only ground given is that the counsel for the appellants-claimants before the learned MACT, Barnala had advised them that even the appeal can be filed against the award passed by the learned Tribunal in the High Court at any time, as there C.M.No.12005-CII of 2007 and #2# FAO. NO.2389 OF 2007 is no limitation provided for filing the claim petition before the Tribunal. Notice of the application was issued. Reply of the same has been filed by respondent No.1-Iqbal Singh driver of the offending bus wherein it has been averred that no ground much less sufficient ground has been given for condoning the delay. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is amply clear that as per second proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appeal against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has to be filed within a limitation period of 90 days and if the Court is satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time, the same can be entertained beyond the period of 90 days. In the facts of the case, I find that there is unwarranted and unexplained delay of 6 years and 37 days in filing the appeal. The alleged bold averment of wrong advice of the counsel cannot be believed and this is no ground to condone the delay. No affidavit of the said counsel has been annexed to show that he had given such an advice. Nothing has been placed on record to show that on account of aforesaid wrong advice, any complaint was made before any Forum. It is quite settled that purely on sympathetic grounds, delay cannot be condoned. I find no ground to condone the delay. Dismissed as barred by limitation. March 27, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE