Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - On the death of Avtar Singh, on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road side accident that took place on 19.8.2001, his dependents Santokh Singh and others brought a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). It has been decided vide award dated 26.8.2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, “the Tribunal”) awarding a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. While respondents No.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, respondent No.3, National Insurance Company Limited was given the right to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2 for the reason that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Challenging this award, Jimmy Travels, respondent No.2 has brought the appeal. However, the appeal having been filed beyond limitation, an application bearing Civil Misc. No. 31018-CII of 2010 under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 2558 days has been filed along with the grounds of appeal. The plea taken by the appellant in the application is as under:

2. The delay is claimed to be unintentional because earlier the appellant was a partnership firm with Devinder Singh Sidhu and Manjit Singh as partners. A dispute was going on between the two partners and ultimately the firm was dissolved on 1.7.2004. Devinder Singh Sidhu is the sole proprietor of Jimmi Travels now. The case was being pursued by Manjit Singh. He never informed Devinder Singh Sidhu about the present case. Devinder Singh Sidhu has come to know about the case now when National Insurance Company Limited has filed execution for recovery of the amount from the appellant after paying the award amount to the claimants. It is repeated that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor avoidable. It is further claimed that if the delay is not condoned, irreparable loss would occur to the appellant. Hence, the prayer is made. The application is supported by an affidavit of Devinder Singh Sidhu.

3. The application is opposed by respondents No. 2 and 5. They have claimed that there are no cogent reasons furnished by the appellant for explaining the delay of more than 7 years and 3 months. According to them, rights have come to be vested in the answering respondents by the lapse of time which cannot be taken away without explaining the delay by very cogent reasons. It is claimed that the entire application fails to disclose any reason for delay. It is claimed that the appellant was duly represented through counsel and, therefore, passing of the award on 26.8.2003 was very much in the knowledge of the appellant. It is denied that the appellant did not come to know about the award at the time of passing of the same. It is further claimed that even if the plea of dissolution of the partnership on 1.7.2004 is accepted, the award was passed on 26.8.2003 and the firm was dissolved about an year thereafter. The aforesaid pleas taken by way of preliminary objections have been repeated suitably in the reply on merits and the application is prayed to be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr. Manjit Singh Khaira, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dharminder Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 5. While the appeal against the claimants had been dismissed by this court vide order dated 18.5.2011, none appears for respondents No. 6 to 8. I have gone through the record carefully.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has reiterated the plea taken out in the application. According to him, Devinder Singh Sidhu and Manjit Singh had been the partners of the firm and a dispute was going on between the two, which ultimately ended with dissolution of the firm on 1.7.2004. According to him, Manjit Singh was pursuing their defence in this case and he did not inform Devinder Singh