MC 722/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI By making this application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, t he applicant has sought for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal agains t the award dated 22/4/2008 passed in MAC Case No.31/1999 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupee s seven lakhs) only has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant/o pposite party No. 1,2 and 3. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. N.N. J ha, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1,2 and 3. None has appeared on be half of the remaining opposite party. In the case at hand, the award was passed on 22/4/2008. There is nothing on record to show any copy of the award having been served on the applicant. Be that as it may, the applicant’s case is that a copy of the award was furnished to the Divisional office on 16/6/2008 and the Divisional office handed over the copy of the judgment to the Regional office, at Guwahati, on 18/7/2008. Thus, a period of more than one month was taken for delivering copies of the judgment b y the Divisional office to the Regional office. The reason for taking such a bel ated delivery, no cogent reason has been assigned. The applicant states that Reg ional office obtained the opinion of the counsel on 12/8/2008. It is, however, n ot discernible from the present application as to when papers were handed over b y the applicant to their counsel seeking the latter’s opinion. Be that as it may, the applicant claims that the matter was placed before the Re gional office, which decided to prefer an appeal. An instruction was accordingly issued on 17/10/2008. Why instruction was so belatedly issued, there is no expl anation offered by the applicant. It is the applicant’s case that the appeal was ready for filing on 2/10/2008, but due to curfew imposed, following some serial bomb blasts, the appeal could be filed only on 4/11/2008. Having considered the reasons assigned by the applicant for seeking cond onation of delay, this Court is of the view that though the applicant has assign ed reasons for the delay, which has occurred, fact remains that at some stages, appropriate action had not been taken as promptly as could have been, or ought t o have been, taken. Situated thus, this Court is of the view that prayer needs t o be allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/-. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the prayer for cond onation of delay is hereby allowed with cost of Rs.2,500/-. With the above observations and directions, this Misc. Case stands allow ed.