( 1 ) A claim petition was decided by the tribunal granting compensation of Rs. 4. 00 lakhs to the claimants. This was challenged by way of two appeals. One appeal had been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation and the other appeal had been filed by the insurance Company challenging the award. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was numbered as CM. A. No. 1017/91 and the claimants appeal was numbered as c. M. A. No. 1702/91. It appears that the appeal filed by the claimants came to be decided first by the learned Single Judge of this Court and it was decided on 3rd december, 1997. The learned Single Judge only increased the compensation by an amount of Rs. 30,000. 00 Rs. 15,000. 00 were awarded towards loss of the estate and rs. 15,000/- for the loss of consortium. The appeal was decided after hearing the teamed Counsel for the Insurance company. The Insurance Company did not dispute the liability of the Insurance company even when this appeal was heard and decided. It did not also inform the court that the Insurance Company had also filed an appeal challenging the award on the ground mat their liability was limited to rs. 1. 50 lakhs. The Court recorded: "the respondents who are the owner and insurance Company did not file any appeal questioning the said award Although this case was decided in the year 1997 no appeal was preferred against it. It appears that thereafter the appeal filed by the Insurance company against the award came to be heard and decided on 20th March. 2000. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that, since the earlier appeal had been decided which had been filed by the claimants against the award by another Bench of the Court, therefore he could not interfere with the award.

( 2 ) THERE is a delay of 1047 days in filing the first Letters Patent Appeal and there is delay of 139 days in filing the second letters Patent Appeal. The grounds taken by the Insurance Company in the application seeking condonation of delay are that, whereas the appeal filed by the claimant was entrusted to one Counsel and the case challenging the award by the insurance Company was entrusted to another Counsel therefore lack of co- ordination between the two Counsels resulted in disposal of the appeals at two different stages. This cannot be taken a ground for seeking condonation of delay. The first appeal was decided in December, 1997. It was decided in presence of the learned Counsel for the Insurance company, therefore it can be presumed mat they were aware of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the first Appeal. Even after knowing that the appeal of the claimants had been allowed and compensation had been enhanced, no steps were taken for almost three years to file an appeal. It is only after the second Appeal was decided by the learned Single Judge that the Insurance Company came out of the slumber and tried to take steps to file the Letters Patent Appeal. Even in this appeal there is delay of 139 days. Further grounds given are that, since the two advocates were pursuing two different matters arising out of the same award, parallel files were being run and relevant papers could not be traced and ultimately, according to them, it was on 27th June, 2000 that the approval to file an appeal was obtained. Even after this date the appeal was filed after almost five months.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of haryana vs. Chandra Mani. The Supreme court in this case laid down that a liberal approach should be adopted in cases of condonation of delays. In para-11 the Court stated:"11. It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in rnore than 60 per cent of-the cases filed in this Court be it by private party-or the State are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to