FAO No. 801 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 4366-CII of 2010 and F.A.O. No. 801 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.4.2010 Nihal Singh .. Appellant v. Pargat Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H. S. Batth, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The claimant is in appeal before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation on account of the death of his wife in a motor vehicular accident. Along with the appeal, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 824 days in filing the appeal. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 10.10.1994, at 10.30 P.M., deceased-Kuldip Kaur along with the appellant was going to their land at Chheharatta on a scooter. When the scooter reached near by pass-Chhehratta near Gurdwara Baba Darshan Singh, truck bearing no. PB 02 B 9546, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the scooter from back side. As a result of the accident, Kuldip Kaur received head injury and died at the spot. In the claim petition, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Ad-hoc), Amritsar ( (for short, `the Tribunal') awarded Rs. 2,63,000/- as compensation. It is against this award that the appellant is before this Court. In support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that the appellant could not file the appeal well in time, as the sole bread earner of the family died and there was no one in the family to take care of routine matters. 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 applicant-appellant, 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 FAO No. 801 of 2010 [2] delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot 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 824 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 30.4.2010 mk