JUDGMENT : 

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle. Challenge in the appeal is to the award dated 20.08.2014. Along with the appeal, CM-10850-CII-2024 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2793 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, while referring to the averments made in the application, has submitted that the appellant was under the impression that no liability to pay the compensation to the claimants had been fastened upon the present appellant and thus, he was under the impression that he did not need to file an appeal. It is submitted that it is only when he received summons from the Executing Court in December, 2023 that he realized that liability had been fastened upon him and thereafter, the appellant tried to settle the matter with the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and subsequent to the same, the appeal was filed and in the process, the delay of 2793 days had occurred. It is submitted that the delay is due to the said bona fide reasons and the Court should adopt liberal approach in condoning the delay and thus, has prayed that application for condonation of delay be allowed and the main appeal be heard on merits.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company, which is the main contesting party in the present case, has vehemently opposed the present application and has filed detailed reply. While referring to the averments made in the reply dated 08.01.2026, it has been highlighted by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company that award in the present case was passed in the year 2014 in the presence of the counsel for the appellant/owner. It is submitted that the present appellant had duly participated in the proceedings and even had filed written statement and a perusal of the award clearly shows that it was held that the appellant had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus, recovery rights were given to the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the cause as mentioned in the application cannot even remotely be stated to be a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 7 years, 7 months and 28 days. It is argued that by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, vested rights have been created in favour of the Insurance Company and the said vested rights cannot be taken away by condoning such a huge delay. It is further argued that the sword of Damocles cannot be kept hanging over respondent No.1-Insurance Company. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 08.01.2025 passed in case titled as H. Guruswamy & ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah since deceased by LRs, reported as 2025 SCC Online SC 54, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.02.2011 passed in the case titled as Union of India Vs. Nripen Sarma reported as 2013 (4) SCC 57, and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19.09.1997 titled as P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala reported as 1997 (7) SCC 556.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant as well as learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company and is of the opinion that CM-10850-CII-2024 which has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2793 days in filing the main appeal, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. A perusal of the award dated 20.08.2014 would show that the claimants had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the present appellant was impleaded as respondent No.2 and was stated to be the owner of the offending truck. The driver was impleaded as respondent No.1 and Insurance Company was impleaded as respondent No.3. A perusal of the award further shows that Dinesh Gupta, Advoca