P.K. Misra, J.

The question in controversy relates to the extent of liability of the Insurance Company. Appeal has been preferred by the owner. There is a delay of about 900 days in filing the appeal. Notice has been served on the respondent/Insurance Company as well as the claimant/respondent.

2. At the time when the petition for condonation of delay was listed, we had made it clear to the counsels appearing for all the parties that they should advance arguments not only on the question of delay but also on merit of the appeal itself. Accordingly, the learned counsels have been heard on the question of condonation of delay as well as on merit of the appeal. It is therefore necessary to first consider the question of condonation of delay and, if delay is condoned, the appeal itself would be disposed of on merits. However, if the delay is not condoned, it may not be necessary to deal with the questions raised in the appeal.

3. In the petition for condonation of delay, the appellant has contended that since he had shifted his business to Dharmapuri from Kancheepuram in the year 1988, he had lost contact with his advocate and the letter sent to him by his advocate could not be received by him, and, therefore, he was not aware of the disposal of the appeal by the learned single Judge of the High Court. It has been further stated that when he had come to Kancheepuram in connection with a marriage, he was informed by his relatives regarding filing of an execution case and, thereafter, the appellant contacted his advocate at Chennai and after tracing out the connected files, the appeal was filed without any further delay. It has been stated by him that delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to circumstances beyond his control.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.2. In such counter affidavit, the allegation that the appellant had shifted his residence and business activities to Dharmapuri had been denied. On the other hand it is claimed that still the appellant is continuing his business in Kancheepuram and staying there.

5. A counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, namely, the Insurance Company, similarly denying the allegations made by the appellant.

6. Even though the delay in filing the appeal is considerable, it cannot be held that the appellant had deliberately delayed the matter, as ordinarily he is not expected to derive any benefit by simply delaying such filing of the appeal. It is now well settled that the question of delay should be considered liberally with a view to advance the cause of substantial justice. In this connection, it is worthwhile to refer to the observations made in AIR 1987 SC 1353 (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Andanother V. Mst. Katiji And Others) :-

“... It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realised that :-

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account