JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant application, applicant-company seeks condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ramban (“for brevity” Tribunal), in Claim petition No. 19/2013 titled as 'Javid Ahmed Malik vs. Mohd. Yaqoob Rather and others'.

2. The background facts those emerge from the case in hand are that on 02.05.2004. Non-applicant/respondent No.1 herein while riding a scooter met with an accident and received injuries as a result of which he suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 30%. The claimant-respondent No.1 at the time of accident was 30 years old.

3. The Non-applicant/respondent No. 1 instituted a claim petition under Sections 166/140 of Motor Vehicle Act and a contesting award came to be passed by the Tribunal on 27.05.2013 allowing an award of Rs.1,40,000/-.

4. The aforesaid award (supra) is questioned in the appeal accompanying the instant application.

5. The case set up by the applicant-company in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is that upon passing of the award on 27.05.2013 by the Tribunal, the applicant-company's counsel defending the case at Ramban applied for certified copy on 05.08.2013, whereafter counsel for the applicant-company is stated to have sent the certified copy of the award to the applicant-company by registered post stated to have been received on 22.08.2013 and whereupon the legal section of the applicant-company is stated to have bonafidely considered the impugned award and obtained opinion of the defending counsel as well. The entire claim file along with copy of the award is stated to have been sent to the Regional Office at Chandigarh for their consideration/permission, since as per the norms of the company, it is only the Regional office which is competent to decide whether appeal should be filed against the award or not.

6. It is being stated that the entire claim file was bonafidely considered by the Regional Office of the applicant-company at various levels for which the file had to move from table to table and from officer to officer, thereby resulting into unintentional delay. It is further being stated that the facts as detailed out in the application, constitute a good and sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal.

7. Per contra, respondents-non-applicants 2 and 3 have filed objections in opposition to the instant application and seek dismissal of the same on the premise that no important question of law is involved in the appeal accompanying the instant condonation application and that in the memo of appeal it is wrongly alleged that driving license of respondent No. 3 was fake, as no evidence had been produce by the applicant-company in this regard. The further stand taken in the objections is that respondent No. 3 was possessing a valid licence and was authorized to drive heavy passenger motor vehicle (Bus) at the time of accident. It is further averred in the objections that no cogent reason has been mentioned by the applicant-company in the condonation application for not filing appeal within time.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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. It is established that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigor prescribed by a statute. Although Section 5 of J&K Limitation Act Samvat, 1995 provides for extension of the period of limitation in certain cases, and appellant/applicant seeking such extension is required to satisfy the court that there has been a sufficien