The main legal point established in the judgment is that a 'package policy' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is considered a comprehensive policy, covering the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation to the occupant in a car.

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Gangtok, East Sikkim, has preferred this appeal against judgment dated 30.3.2013 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok (for short, 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 19 of 2012, whereby learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,55,500 in favour of claimants-respondents in respect of death of Dawa Gyalpo Sherpa, who died in motor accident on 28.1.2012.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants-respondents filed an application under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal against non-applicant-appellant for compensation in respect of death of Dawa Gyalpo Sherpa, who died in motor accident on 28.1.2012. The respondent No. 1 is widow and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are children of the deceased. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,76,000 under different heads as mentioned in the claim application.

3. The non-applicant-appellant filed its written objection/reply, wherein claim was disputed.

4. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

"(1) Whether deceased died in a motor accident involving the vehicle bearing registration No. SK 03-4625 (Bolero Pickup) at Dipu Dara, Singtam-Dikchu Road, East Sikkim on 28.1.2012?

(2) Whether there has been violation of condition No. 1 of the insurance policy?

(3) Whether the deceased had a valid driving licence and whether the documents of the vehicle were valid and effective at the time of the accident?

(4) Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation as claimed?"

5. In support of the claim petition, the claimant No. 1 adduced evidence on affidavit for herself and on behalf of claimant Nos. 2 and 3. She was cross-examined by the opposite party. No evidence was led on behalf of opposite party.

6. Learned Tribunal, after considering submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and consequently awarded a sum of Rs. 4,55,500 towards compensation in favour of claimants with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

7. Being aggrieved by the above said judgment the insurance company has preferred this appeal before this court.

8. There is a delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, appellant has filed CM. Application No. 182 of 2013 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant in its application has averred that judgment was passed on 30.3.2013, a copy of which was made available by the Tribunal on 22.4.2013, the same was handed over to the Divisional Office at Siliguri, West Bengal on 22.5.2013 only as the learned counsel for the appellant was out of station due to his ill-health. On 28.5.2013, the entire file was sent to Kolkata Regional Office, thereafter, it was sent for opinion of learned counsel and on receipt of opinion, a decision was taken to file an appeal. A letter was sent on 15.7.2013 to learned advocate to file the appeal. On 11.8.2013, the said advocate refused to file appeal due to his personal reasons. Thereafter, a letter was written to another advocate, who also refused to file the appeal. Then vide letter dated 29.10.2013 the present counsel was appointed, who drafted the appeal and filed it on 29.11.2013. It is, therefore, prayed in the application that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, therefore, delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

9. Respondents have filed their detailed written objections to the application and have submitted that the delay in filing the application has not been explained properly, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

10. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Admittedly, the copy of judgment of the Tribunal was delivered to the app