This application under proviso to section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the petitioner, namely, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal FA No.78 of 1997 against the judgment and award that was passed on 10.7.96 in Title Suit (MAC) No. 164 of 1995.

2. I have heard Mr.SM Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. Deb Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

3. There is no controversy over the fact that the judgment and award which has been impugned in the memo of appeal was passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 10.7.96. The certified copy of the judgment/ award was furnished to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd ie the present petitioner on 15.7.96. In course of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, a question has arisen as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get exclusion of the period which the Tribunal needed for furnishing the copy of the judgment/ award in the matter of computing the period of limitation. Section 168 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (abbreviated hereinafter as the Act) which is relevant for the purpose may, therefore, be quoted as under :

"168. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the Award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of award."

4. A bare perusal of the provision quoted above makes it clear that it is incumbent upon the Tribunal to cause furnishing of a copy of the judgment/Award to the concerned parties within a period of fifteen days. It has, therefore, become necessary to see as to whether the period of fifteen-days or a period lesser than that which the Tribunal might require for furnishing the copy of the judgment/award to the parties should excluded or not; While assisting Mr. SM Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Deb; learned senior counsel drew my attention to the provision laid down under section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and has submitted that in view of the provisions laid down under section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period which the Court/Tribunal needed for furnishing the copy of the judgment/Award has to be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. Section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under;

"12. (2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of die decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded."

This provision clearly indicates that the period which will be required for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment/Award shall be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation. There is no dispute that certified copy of the judgment/award is needed to be filed along with the memo of appeal, Therefore, the period which was needed for supplying the certified copy has to be excluded. In the instant case the provision as laid down under section 168 (2) of the Act has clearly stated that the Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the Award to the parties. This section as has been couched shows that it is mandatory for the Tribunal to cause furnishing the copies of the judgment/Award to the parties. As the memo of appeal is not entertain able without the certified copy of the impugned judgment/Award I am of the view that the period which was needed for furnishing the copy has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation.

5. In the instant case the judgment/Award was passed on 10.7.96.1 have already stated above that the copy of the impugned judgment/Award was furnished to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document