Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. S. Biswas learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3. None appears on call for the opposite party No. 4 although notices has been duly served on the said opposite party, as such, the matter has proceeded ex-parte against him. By this application under second proviso to section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 159 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected appeal. The causes of delay is explained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this application, indicating that although the impugned judgment and award was passed on 28.05.2015, the certified copy of the said judgment and award was obtained on 21.07.2015 and the same was furnished to the applicant on 24.07.2015. However, his legal opinion was received on 21.08.2015. Thereafter, the files were received by the office of the Regional Office of the applicant on 03.09.2015 and the matter was referred to them on 22.09.2015. The learned counsel for the applicant found that in respect of the same claim, the applicant had prosecuted another claim before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, being W.C. Case No. 150/2010. However, the copies of the relevant documents of the said case were not available in the case folder. Therefore, the applicant was requested to furnish the said documents. The copies of W.C. Case No. 150/2010 could be obtained only on 27.11.2015 and the same was forwarded to the Regional Office on 30.11.2015 and the said copies were handed over to the learned counsel for the applicant only on 14.12.2015 and finally the appeal was filed on 17.02.2016 and in the said process there was a delay of 159 days beyond the period of limitation for filing the connected appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the documents appended to the connected memo appeal, the claim for compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, being W.C. Case No. 150/2010 was in respect of the death of Late Megnath Basumatary by vehicular accident and the judgment and order dated 16.09.2011 was passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. Thereafter, MAC Case No. 40/12 was registered before the learned Member, MACT, Bongaigaon wherein it was projected that there was a motor vehicle accident involving two vehicles and this time the claim was made against the owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle insured by the applicant. The said claim resulted in award dated 28.5.2015. It is further submitted that some procedural delay had occurred in filing the connected appeal which is liable to be construed liberally. It is submitted that in this case owing to the requirement of record of W.C. Case No. 150/2010, there has been some delay. Moreover, the counsel conducting the MAC Case had furnished the certified copy as well as his opinion almost after a lapse of 60 days and 90 days respectively.

3. It is further projected that by referring to the case of the State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 752, that the decision for filing of the connected appeal was taken under a impersonal machinery working through the various officers of the applicant Hence, the explanation of the delay must be considered liberally and in the present case in hand where it can be prima-facie shown that in respect of the same accident, claim has been made before the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and after the judgment and award was passed in W.C. Case No. 150/2010, the subsequent claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon.

4. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to the case of G Ramegowda, Major & Ors. v. Special land acquisition officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142 and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123.

5. Per contra, the learned couns