Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

The applicant/appellant has instituted an appeal against the award dated 22.3.2013, rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Mandi in Claim Petition No. 85 of 2010. The appeal is barred by 220 days.

2. According to the applicant/appellany, the award was made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Mandi on 22.3.2013. Certified copy was applied on 29.7.2013. It was supplied on 1.8.2013. Learned counsel sent the certified copy of award to the Divisional Office of the applicant-Company on 20.8.2013. Thereafter, the file was processed at Mandi Divisional Office, Mandi and sent mails dated 27.8.2013 and 19.9.2013 asking to send latest driving license verification report. A letter was received from Lalaram Balotia, Investigator, Jaipur on 19.9.2013. The opinion of Subhash Dwivedi, Advocate was also sought. He gave his opinion on 16.12.2013. The competent authority decided to file an appeal and the file was sent to the Divisional Office, Mandi on 7.1.2014. Thereafter, the file was forwarded to Divisional Office of applicant-Company at Shimla and the same was sent to the counsel on 28.1.2014. There was winter break and the appeal was filed on 19.2.2014.

3. 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. In the instant case, the award is dated 22.3.2013. The appeal was to be filed on or before 20.5.2013. The certified copy itself has been applied by the applicant/appellant only on 29.7.2013 after the expiry of limitation. Certified copy was supplied on 1.8.2013. Learned counsel has sent the certified copy to the Divisional Office, Mandi on 20.8.2013. A letter has also been received from Lalaram Balotia, Investigator, Jaipur on 19.9.2013. Opinion of Subhash Dwivedi, Advocate was sought after three months i.e. 16.12.2013. The file was sent to Divisional Office, Mandi on 7.1.2014 and the Divisional Office forwarded the same to Divisional Office, Shimla on 28.1.2014. The appeal has been filed only, as noticed above, on 19.2.2014. There is a delay in applying the certified copy. There is also delay in obtaining the driving license verification report from Lalaram Balotia. The Investigator has submitted his report on 19.9.2013 and thereafter, there is also inordinate delay from 19.9.2013 till the filing of the appeal.

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Mandi has framed the following issue on 1.6.2013:

“Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident to drive the vehicle, if so, its effect? OPR-3”

5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had returned a finding that the driver was in possession of valid driving license. The driver was authorized to drive the transport vehicle from 17.7.2008 to 17.7.2011 and thereafter, as per document Ext. R-X from 18.7.2011 to 17.7.2014. The accident has taken place on 30.8.2010. Insurance Company has failed to prove before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that driver Shankar Lal was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. The driving license verification report was to be obtained during the pendency of the case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and not before this Court.

6. 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 consi