ORDER

27.09.2022 Heard Mr B J Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the applicants/claimants and Mr S K Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/Insurance Company.

2. By this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with proviso of section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the applicants/claimants have prayed for condonation of 191 days’ delay in filing the connected appeal against the Judgment and Award, passed by learned Member, MACT, Morigaon, in MAC Case No. 48/2013, which was finally modified by order dated 27.02.2018, passed by the learned Member, MACT, in Misc (J) (MACT) Case No. 24/2017.

3. It is stated in the petition that the MAC Case No. 48/2013, was initially decided vide Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2016. Thereafter, they were expecting that the awarded amount, which was made payable by the Insurance Company would be soon disbursed to them. However, after waiting for a year, they came to know that the Insurance Company has filed a review petition vide M J (MACT) Case No. 24/2017 and they were informed by their Advocate that it may take some time. They kept on inquiring about the final outcome of the said review petition. By that time, there was delay of 191 days to file the appeal. It is also submitted that the delay that has occurred is unintentional and beyond their control.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that out of four applicants, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are minor and applicant Nos. 1 and 4 are women, residing at Morigaon and it is not very easy on their part to arrange for travel very frequently from Morigaon to Guwahati. As such, there was delay and which may be considered, as the award of the Tribunal was delivered in their favour.

5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the delay was caused merely due to fault of the engaged lawyer for the applicants, which is not intentional on their part.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted one case-law in Union of India –Vs- M/s. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., reported in 2008 (5)

GLR 24.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted their objection by stating that though the applicant has preferred the appeal against Judgment and Award, passed by MACT, Morigaon, in MAC Case No. 48/2013, but in the Cause Title of the application, applicant has not reflected whether appeal has been preferred against the main Judgment and Award or against the order dated 27.02.2018, passed in Misc (J) Case No. 24/2017. It is further stated that originally the judgment was passed on 30.03.2016 and the present application for condonation of delay has been filed by the applicant in the year 2018, As such, it is not correct that there is a delay of 191 days in preferring appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that if the delay is to be counted from the date of original judgment and award, then delay will be more than 900 days. Delay in preferring appeal is intentional and deliberate. As such, present petition is liable to be dismissed.

By referring a case-law, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 736; learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that if any review has been filed with the consent of the other side, no appeal lies.

9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties.

10. It is an admitted fact that out of four applicants, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are minor and applicant Nos. 1 and 4 are women, residing at Morigaon around 70 kilometres away from Guwahati. Normally, a liberal approach is required in a delay condonation application. However, if the interest of other side is jeopardized because of delay, then the Court must have to consider, whether the satisfactory explanation for delay is given or not.

10. In the case of V K Thukral & Others –Vs- Lalit; reported in 2006 ACJ 2440, owner has filed an application for condonation of 416 days delay in preferring