The owner of the vehicle holds primary liability for interim awards under the Motor Vehicle Act, although the Insurance Company may indemnify under specific proven circumstances.

1. Today the instant appeal viz. M.A. No.444/2012 has been listed along with other connected matters bearing M.A. Nos.445/2012, 446/2012, 447/2012, 448/2012, 449/2012, 450/2012, 451/2012, 452/2012, 453/2012, 454/2012, 455/2012, 456/2012, 457/2012, 458/2012, 459/2012, 460/2012, 461/2012, 462/2012 and 463/2012. All the appeals have been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and, hence, today they all have been listed for consideration of applications for condonation of such delay. Since the proceedings initiated by the respective claimants before the learned Tribunal are the outcome of common accident and similar orders have been passed in all the matters although on different dates so also as the ground mentioned in all applications for condonation of delay is similar, hence, the applications for condonation of delay filed in all the appeals are heard analogously and decided vide this common order.

2. There is a delay of near about one and half years in filing the appeals. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company that after passing the interim award by the learned Tribunal the file was misplaced in the Division Office of appellant - company and the same could not be traced out for a considerable period and immediately after tracing out the file review applications were filed by the appellant / company before learned Tribunal which were dismissed and after that these appeals have been filed within limitation prescribed under the law. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the delay caused in filing the appeals is based on bonafide, hence, the same may be condoned.

3. On the contrary, learned counsel present on behalf of the respondents / claimants submits that the ground taken by the appellant / company that the delay has been caused due to the fault of the employees / officers of the company, as the case file was misplaced, is not sufficient to condone such an inordinate delay of one and half years. It is further submitted by her that after passing the interim award, the appellant / company preferred review applications along with an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, however, the review applications have been dismissed as time barred so also on merit. On these premised submissions, learned counsel prays that the applications for condonation of delay filed by the appellant / company may be rejected with costs and in consequence thereto appeals may be dismissed.

4. No doubt, it is true that there is an inordinate delay in preferring the appeals and the reason assigned by learned counsel for the appellant / company for condonation of such delay is that the file was misplaced in the office of the Company, but that alone cannot be sufficient to condone the aforesaid inordinate delay caused in filing the appeals, as in such circumstance the Court has also to consider interest of justice since the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time - limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim i