The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to condone the delay in filing appeals, considering the appellant's circumstances and actions.

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

1. CM No. 10245-CII-2015 in FAO No. 3437 of 2015 (O&M)

2. CM No. 10648-CII-2015 in FAO No. 3602 of 2015 (O&M)

3 . CM No. 10666-CII-2015 in FAO No. 3607 of 2015 (O&M)

These are applications seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeals that accompany these applications. The appeals in these 3 cases, have been filed by the owner of one of the vehicles involved in the accident in issue in these cases.

1. CM No. 10245-CII-2015 in/and FAO No. 3437 of 2015 (O&M)

In this case, there is a delay of 725 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. CM No. 10648-CII-2015 in/and FAO No. 3602 of 2015 (O&M)

In this case, there is a delay of 727 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

3 . CM No. 10666-CII-2015 in/and FAO No. 3607 of 2015 (O&M)

In this case, there is a delay of 628 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

Since the reason for the delay in each of these applications is given to be the same, all three applications seeking condonation of delay are being taken up together.

It has been stated in these applications that after the Award was passed (in two cases on 16.02.2013 and in one case (FAO no.3607 of 2015) on 24.05.2013), holding that the insurance companies of two of the three vehicles involved in the accident could recover the compensation to be paid by them from the insured, i.e. the owners of their respective vehicles, the owner of the dumper vehicle bearing registration no.HR-63A-8266, i.e. respondent no. 3 in these appeals, filed an application seeking reviews of the impugned Awards, on the ground that there was a valid permit obtained by him for operating his vehicle, i.e. the dumper, and as such the Award of the Tribunal granting recovery rights to the insurance company, on the ground that the owner could not produce a valid permit operating the said vehicles, was a wholly erroneous finding by the Tribunal.

Both the applications, i.e. the one seeking review of the Award dated 16.02.2013 and the one seeking review of the Award dated 24.05.2013, were dismissed by the Tribunal on the same date, i.e. 22.01.2014, holding therein that no ground for review was made out, because the Awards were passed on the basis of evidence available on the file and the review sought was not on account of any clerical or typographical error.

It has been further stated in these applications that the present applicant, i.e. Bhagat Singh, owner of the other vehicle bearing registration no.HR-62-1535 (Mahindra Max), had also filed a reply to the aforesaid review applications, stating therein that his vehicle was his personal vehicle, registered as a private vehicle and therefore, there was no requirement for him to seek any kind of permit to ply it.

The applications seeking condonation of delay further state that no appeal has been filed by the insurance companies involved, as regards the quantum of compensation awarded and they have actually paid the claimants in terms thereof.

Therefore, it was during execution proceedings that the issue of recovery came up, in which the applicant filed his reply, stating therein that his Mahindra Max vehicle bearing registration No. HR-62-1535 having been registered as a private vehicle, no route permit was required to operate it.

Thus, it is contended that it was only during the hearing of the execution petition, that the question of whether any appeal had been filed to challenge the finding in the Award, with regard to recovery to be made by the insurance companies, first came up. It is further stated in the applications that the applicant had therefore told his counsel that he was under the belief that the ground taken by him in the execution application against the recovery to be made from him was available to him in the execution application itself, and consequently he had not filed any appeal in this Court against the impugned Awards.

Other than the aforesaid stand, it has also be