The decisive factor in condonation of delay is the sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation, and diligence and commitment are crucial in filing appeals, especially in cases related to compensation for victims of vehicular accidents.

JUDGMENT :

1. This order shall dispose of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the award dated 23.08.2008 (hereinafter 'impugned award') passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban (hereinafter 'Tribunal') being File No. 2/C titled as Raja Begum vs. Mohd. Latif and others.

2. The facts those emerge from the perusal of the case are that an award/judgment came to be passed by the Tribunal on 23.08.2008, against the applicant herein being respondent No. 2 in the claim petition.

3. It is stated that applicant was not having any knowledge with regard to the filling of the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, as no service has been effected upon him in the said claim petition. It is stated that Tribunal without effecting service upon him has passed the impugned award by virtue of which he has been directed to satisfy the award amount i.e., Rs.3,22,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

4. It is being stated that applicant came to know about the passing of the impugned award only on 14.09.2010 and he immediately contacted his counsel who appeared before the Tribunal.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid explanation as contended in the application and supported with an affidavit, a delay of 638 days is sought to be condoned on the ground that the impugned award is ex-facie bad, contrary to the facts and law and that on the date of accident the vehicle in question was duly insured with the respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., as such applicant is not liable to pay the award amount. It is further stated that applicant is not the owner of the vehicle in question but one Narayan Singh is owner of the vehicle in question.

6. Per contra the respondents have filed objections resisting and controverting therein the contentions raised and grounds urged in the condonation application by the applicant. The respondents in the first instance have contended that applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as applicant has failed to explain when the copy of the order was received and how such time was consumed for preparing the appeal. It is next contended in the objection that in case petitioner had not been duly served by the Tribunal, he would have applied to the Tribunal for setting aside of the impugned award instead of challenging the same in this Court by way of appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Perusal of the record reveals that no explanation as to when the counsel for the applicant applied for a certified copy of the impugned award and on which date the same was received. The only ground taken by the applicant is that he came to know about the passing of the award only on 14.09.2010. i.e., after two years.

8. Before proceeding to analyze the application and grounds urged therein for condonation of delay it would be appropriate and advantageous to refer to the legal position enumerated by the Apex Court on the subject of condonation of delay.

9. The law on the subject of section 5 of the Limitation Act is no more res integra and there is a long line of decisions rendered and delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject.

10. The Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Bherulal, 2020 (10) SCC 654, at paras 3 and 5 has observed as under:-

"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government [LAO v. Katiji]. This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:-

"(27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in t