The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, emphasizing the need for a justice-oriented approach in matters involving condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT :

1. This order shall dispose of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter 'Tribunal'), being claim petition No. 100/Claims titled as Surinder Kumar Thusu vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. dated 31.05.2010.

2. The facts those emerge from the perusal of the case are that an award/judgment came to be passed by the Tribunal on 31.05.2010, against the applicant-company herein being respondent No. 1 in the claim petition.

3. It is stated that the applicant-company upon receipt of the award from the counsel referred the same along with the detailed opinion of the dealing counsel to the retainer of the company for his opinion in the matter being a usual practice thereon. It is stated that the retainer of the applicant-company after going through the entire record including the award/judgment as also the opinion of the dealing counsel, submitted an opinion that the award be satisfied subject to the verification of the medical bills and that while going through the award it came to be noticed that the respondent/non-applicant No. 1 herein had only enclosed the medial bill of Rs.2,61,777.95 and that the Tribunal wrongly allowed an amount of Rs.4,22,509/- probably on the basis of the wrong calculation made by the respondent/non-applicant No. 1 herein.

4. It is stated that an application under Section 152 CPC came to be filed by the applicant-company herein seeking amendment of the award in this regard before the Tribunal wherein a notice came to be issued to the respondent/non-applicant No. 1 and in response whereof he put his appearance and sought time for filing objections.

5. It is being stated that a cross appeal pending before the Tribunal filed by the applicant came to be withdrawn on 24.02.2012, under the bonafide impression that owing of the pendency of the aforesaid application the cross objections/appeal may not be appropriate.

6. It is being stated that in terms of the order dated 06.03.2012, the above application under Section 152 CPC came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on the premises that since an appeal in the matter is pending before this Court, wherein award is under challenge, as such, it will not be proper for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the merits of the application.

7. According to the applicant-company subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order dated 06.03.2012, a copy of the order was provided to the company for further necessary action and that the legal hub of the company sent the order of Tribunal to the retainer of the company for his opinion and after sending the entire file for his perusal, the retainer opined that the company should file a regular appeal in the High Court against the award as well as against the order dated 06.03.2012 (supra).

8. It is being further stated that upon receipt of the entire case file along with the opinion of the retainer, the file was handed over to the present counsel for filing of the appeal, and after going through the file, retainer informed the applicant-company to prepare a cheque for an amount of Rs.25,000/- as a requisite for filing of an appeal and thereafter appeal was prepared on 07.06.2012.

9. It is being further stated that the applicant-company was required to file an appeal within a period of 90 days from the date of passing of the award excluding the period spent in obtaining the certified copy of the award.

10. It is being stated that the applicant-company has been pursuing the remedy before the Tribunal and that the time spent thereon is required to be excluded and thus, the delay caused in filing of the appeal requires to be condoned.

11. It is being next stated that delay occurred in the whole process was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the appeal involves substantial questions of law warranting condonation of delay in the interest of justice as well.

12. Respondent-non-applicant No. 1 has