THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU MACMAMP 1210 OF 2010 AND MACMA 2103 OF 2010 DATED:08-12- 2010. Between Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad … Appellant And 1.M.Meramma and two others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU MACMAMP 1210 OF 2010 AND MACMA 2103 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: MACMA MP 1210 of 2010 is filed to condone the delay of 3354 days in filing the appeal. 2. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 04- 05-2004 in MVOP NO.895of 2001 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Addl. District Judge, Guntur. 3. The reason for the delay is the files were transferred consequent on the establishment of Guntur Division to Vijayawada. The word ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but it must mean the cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of section. Due to bifurcation of divisions, some negligence is there on the part of employees of petitioner. Proper explanation is given for the delay, but in view of the fact there was abnormal delay in filing the appeal, the same can be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, the delay of 3354 days in filing the appeal is condoned on deposit of Rs.10,000/- by the Railways. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Railways already deposited the award amount. Therefore, out of the award amount under deposit, the respondents 1 and 2 herein are entitled to withdraw Rs.10,000/- towards costs imposed by this Court and the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the remaining amount in deposit. 5. Insofar as merits of appeal is concerned, there is no dispute about the taking place of accident. The deceased and some others were traveling in APSRTC bus and while the driver of the bus driving the vehicle through the unmanned gate of railway crossing, the accident has taken place as there is collision between the train and APSRTC bus. Several persons sustained injuries and several persons died. In respect of some others, the trial Court fastened liability on both the Railways and APSRTC. Hence, the appeal. 6. This Court in a batch of cases, dated 03-10-2007 in CMA No.4175 of 2004 and C.R.Ps.2574, 1601 and 2579 of 2005, allowed the appeals and fastened the liability on APSRTC only. Following the said judgment, this appeal has to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, both MACMAMP and the Appeal are allowed. It is made clear that APSRTC is liable to pay compensation as awarded by the trial Court. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:08-12- 2010 Hsd