IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No.649 of 2010 in FAO(MVA) No.: 252 of 2010. Reserved on: 26.02.2011. Decided on: 09.03.2011. _____________________________________________________ Purshottam Chand. … Appellant. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : None for respondent No.1. Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. CMP(M) No.649 of 2010. This application has been preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the F.A.O. (MVA) against the award dated 22.8.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in M.A.C.T. Petition No.58- K/2002. There is a delay of 4 years 7 months and 18 days in filing 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - the present F.A.O.(MVA). The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay are that the appellant was under the impression that an appeal shall be filed by respondent No.1 against the award dated 22.8.2005 and he belongs to Untodaya Family. The third ground taken is that the appellant suffered from illness, i.e. abscess of leg and he remained under treatment in Government Hospital, Dharamshala. 2. The appellant has miserably failed to prove sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The ground taken that he did not file the F.A.O. presuming that the appeal shall be filed by the Insurance Company, is not legally tenable. He has independent right to file an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since this F.A.O. (MVA) No.252 of 2010 was listed with CMPMO No.263 of 2010, the Court has the occasion to go through the records of both the cases. The appellant has only remained under treatment with effect from 12th September, 2006 to 21st September, 2006. The ground taken that the appellant belongs to Untodaya Family is not a sufficient ground to condone the delay. It is settled law by now that the Courts have to be liberal while considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, it is equally well settled that when there is inordinate delay, the Court has to adopt stricter approach. The appellant has not made out any grounds for condonation of delay in filing the F.A.O. (MVA). - 3 - 3. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. F.A.O.(MVA) No.252 of 2010. 4. In view of the dismissal of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the F.A.O. (MVA) is not maintainable and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. March 09, 2011. (sck).