IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO.No. 243 of 2011. CMP(M).No.821 of 2011. Date of Decision:16.12.2011. _______________________________________________ 1. M/s Choice Agros Pvt. Ltd. Aujla Road,Kapurathala through its authorized representative Sh. Prem Singh, son of Shri Harbhajan Singh, R/o village Kot, Govindpur, District Kapurthala, Punjab. ….Appellant. Versus. 1. Ms. Swadesh Handa, wife of late Dr.Chaman lal Handa. 2. Shipra Handa, Daughter of Late Dr.Chaman Lal Handa 3. Shikha Handa, daughter of late Dr. Chaman Lal Handa. 4. Nitin Handa, son of late Dr.Chaman Lal Handa All residents of Nangal Road, Opposite State Bank of Patiala, Una, H.P. 5. Sh.Amarjeet Singh, son of Mohan Singh, caste Jat, resident of Dhapai village, Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, District Kapurthala, Punjab. 6. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Brnach Manager Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala, Punjab. 7. United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Sector-I, Naya Nangal Punjab. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the petitioner: :Mr.Rajiv Rai, Advocate vice Mr.Y.P.Sood, Advocate. For Respondents 1to 4: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate. For Respondent No.7. Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate. For Respondent No.6. Mr.J.S.Bagga, Advocate. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). This appeal is barred by two years nine months and fifteen days. The appellant pleads that it was unable to prefer the appeal because the appellant was not aware about the award having been passed by the learned Tribunal. Respondent No.5 Amarjeet Singh was driving the vehicle, received a notice of the claim and contacted Shri R.D.Sharma, Advocate at Una, who had been instructed to appear on its behalf and was also handed over the policy and driving licence etc. to him. This information was subsequently imparted by this respondent to the appellant herein. The further pleading is that Sh. R.D.Sharma, Advocate expired on 3.5.2006 but no information was passed on to the appellant herein. The appellant was under the bonafide belief that the case was being prosecuted on its behalf. The application then proceeds that the applicant only came to know about passing of the award when notice of execution was received by it. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Even accepting the explanation on the record as it is that Sh. R.D.Sharma, Advocate died in 2006, what I find from the judgment is that the appellant herein and respondent No.5, who was respondent No.1 before the learned Tribunal were represented by Ms.Seema Sharma, Advocate. I find it difficult to believe that the appellant could not contact its Advocate or vice versa. True, it is not the length of delay which 3 determines as to whether a delay should or not to be condoned but the quality of explanation. I find the quality lacking in this case. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly rejected. Appeal is dismissed. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. December 16, 2011(R)