This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred against an award, dated 23.07.2007, made in M.V.O.P.No.846 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam along with an application M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.8919 of 2008 praying for condonation of delay of 273 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A.

2. Sri Kota Subbrao, the learned counsel representing the appellant, made elaborate submissions contending that even though M.A.C.M.A. is at the unnumbered stage, this Court can exercise the discretion of granting interim stay, may be by imposing certain conditions. The learned counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter in short referred to as :the Act” for the purpose of convenience) and the Rules made thereunder and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter in short referred to as “the Code” for the purpose of convenience)and also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiated his submissions. Though in this matter, Sri Kota Subba Rao, the learned Counsel is appearing for the appellate, inasmuch as the other Standing counsel and the learned Advocates representing the other Insurance Companies and the Corporations also made elaborate submissions this Court heard in elaboration the under noted learned counsel as well. Sarvasri A.V.K.S. Prasad, T. Ramulu, Kota Subba Rao , P. Bhanu Prakash, Maamu Vani, S.A. Jayanthi, A. Malati, V. Srinivasa Rao, Jayathi S.C. Shaker, Kalpana Ekbote, R.K. Suri, Sriman, S.A.V. Ratnam, Kambham Madhava Reddy, C. Prakash Reddy, Naresh Byrapaneni, W.V.S. Rajeswari, S.A.V. Ratnam, Ch. Srinivas and Smt. B.G. Uma Devi, and Sri R.K. Suri.

3. Heard the learned counsel.

4. The short question to be decided is that in M.A.C.M.A. at the unnumbered stage whether discretion can be exercised by this Court to grant stay conditional or otherwise, in the light of the Order 41 Rule 3-A of the Code.

5. Order 41 Rule 3-A of the Code dealing with applications for condonation of delay reads as hereunder:

3A. Application for condonation of delay:

(1) When a appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefore, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.

(2) If the Court sees no reason to reject the application without the Issue of a notice to the respondent, notice thereof shall be issued to the respondent and the matter shall be finally decided by the Court before it proceeds to deal with the appeal under Rule 11 or rule 13, as the case may be.

(3) Where an application has been made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall not make an order for the stay of execution of the decree against which the appeal is proposed to be filed so long as the Court does not, after hearing under rule 11, decide to hear the appeal.

6. Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code deals with stay by Appellate Court and also stay by Court, which passed the decree. Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code deals with appeal from Orders and Order 43 Rule 2 of the Code specifies that the rules of Order 41 shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from orders.

7. Submissions in elaboration had been made in relation to the relevant provisions of the Act, in particular, Sections 168,169, 173, 174,175 of the Act. Section 168 of the Act reads as hereunder:

168 Award of the Claims Tribunal:-

(1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make and award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person o