Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

The applicant/appellant has instituted an appeal against the award dated 17.1.2012 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in M.A.C. Petition No. 85 of 2009. The appeal is barred by one year, two months and twelve days. Hence, the present application.

2. According to the averments contained in the application, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company applied for the certified copy of award on 18.1.2012. It was received by him on 4.2.2012. He sent the same to the Divisional Office, Shimla in the month of February, 2012. However, the records sent by the counsel got misplaced in the connected appeals. When the learned counsel, who had conducted the case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, asked for the release of legal fee in the month of June, 2013, it transpired that certified copy of the award was not on the record. In these circumstances, learned counsel advised the Divisional Office, Shimla to obtain fresh copy of the award. Thereafter, certified copy was applied on 24.6.2013. It was supplied on 25.6.2013. Thereafter, it was sent to the office of the applicant at Shimla on 27.6.2013.

3. The application has been contested by the claimants. The version put forth by the applicant cannot be believed. It is not believable that certified copy of the award dated 17.1.2012 was misplaced in the office. In case, it has been misplaced definitely action would have been taken against the officer/official, who was responsible for this. There is no averment contained in the application that any action has been taken against the officer/official of the insurance company for misplacing the certified copy of the award dated 17.1.2012. In fact, certified copy, as per averment made in the application, was obtained on 4.2.2012 itself. In the application, name of the learned counsel, who had appeared on behalf of the applicant has not even been disclosed. The copy of the bill raised by the learned counsel has also not been placed on record. The entire story has been concocted by the applicant to over come delay of one year two months and twelve days.

4. The applicant has not explained satisfactorily an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. It is settled law that Courts ought to be liberal while considering application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but at the same time, the rights which have accrued to the opposite party cannot be overlooked.

5. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 5 SCC 459 have held that there should be liberal approach in condoning delay of short duration and strict approach in cases of inordinate delay and the same yardstick is to be applied for deciding applications of private individuals and the State. However, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible with regard to State. Their Lordships have held as under:

“14. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.

15. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the