MC 914/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been filed by the Insurance Company, praying for condoning 75 days day in preferring appeal ag ainst the Judgment and Award dated 30.06.2008, passed by the learned Member, MAC T, Bongaigaon, in MAC Case No. 94 of 2005. In the initial counting, it came to be 41 days and as per the official c ounting, the delay was 49 days. However, in the reply affidavit, the Insurance C ompany has clarified that the delay was, in fact, of 75 days. One more aspect which has to be dealt with at this stage is that the app eal has already been admitted on 22.02.2010 on the basis of an order dated 10.02 .2010 passed in Misc Case No. 19 of 2009, wherein, the delay in respect to MAC A ppeal No. 47 of 2010 was condoned. However, inadvertently, the said order was ta gged with the record of MAC Appeal No. 20 of 2010. Subsequently, it was dictated that the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in MAC Appeal No. 20 of 2010 was not heard and the delay was not condoned. Accordingly, the ca se has been listed today. Heard Sri S Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/ petitioner and Sri B Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/ claimant as well as Sri A D Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/ owner of the vehic le. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the prayer to condone t he delay contending that the Insurance Company acted negligently and there was g ross negligence in preferring the appeal within time. Sri Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, submitted that in Para- 3 of the condonation application, it has been stated that the Regional Office of the Insurance Company receiving the records from the Divisional Office on 28.08.2008 and sent the file to their lawyer for filing the appeal only on 1 4.11.2008 and in this way, the file was kept in the Regional Office for 2 ‰ mont hs and on this ground alone the prayer should be rejected. It was stated by Sri Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner that few other appeals, arising out of the same Award, have also been filed and while con sidering the condonation application, this Court directed the Insurance Company to file additional affidavit explaining the aforesaid delay. Accordingly, the ad ditional affidavit has been filed on 07.06.2010, wherein, the detailed clarifica tion for the delay has been given. In Para - 5 of the reply affidavit, it has be en stated that the appeal could not be filed within time as the learned counsel was away from Guwahati during the Puja Holidays as well as the certified copy of the Award was also not available and without that the appeal could not be filed within time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that the Court s hould take a lenient view to condone the delay, provided the appeal has merit. I n the case before me, the appeal has already been admitted and as such, the pres umption is that the appeal has merit. It is also to be kept in mind that in the event of dismissal of the appeal the claimants should be entitled to interest fo r the intervening period. Considering all the aspects, I am inclined to condone the delay. Accordi ngly, the prayer stands allowed and the delay is condoned. Misc Case stands disposed of.