1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Miscellaneous Civil Application No.73 of 2010 in Stamp Number Main 250 of 2010 and Miscellaneous Civil Application No.74 of 2010 in Stamp Number Main No.250 of 2010 Master Junaid Admani Minor, Student, Through Shri Mohammad Iqbal Mohammd Yusuf Admani ..... Applicant. V e r s u s Mr. Shantaram Ganpat Kande and 3 others. ..... Respondents Ms. R. Kantak, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. R. Wadekar, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent no.3. CORAM: A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ DATE: 11th August, 2010. P.C: We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant,the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. These are applications for condonation of delay in 2 filing appeals for enhancement in compensation. The Appeals are preferred by the applicant in a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The delay is of 54 days. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the first and the third respondent have opposed the application by pointing out that in fact, documents which were referred to by the applicant in these applications were already on the record of the Tribunal and therefore, the explanation for delay has no basis. 4. We find that the delay is only of 54 days. The Apex Court has held that a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause had been made out. Hence, we allow the applications by condoning the delay. A. S. OKA, J F. M. REIS, J Ap/-