*1* kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5435/2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5436/2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (Stamp) NO.25320/2008 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.. ..Applicant -VERSUS- Kisan Bhiva Pawar D.H. Dhavalya Kisan Pawar and others. ..Respondents ........... Mr.D.R.Mahadik i/b Mr.S.R.Singh, for the Applicant. None for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Vijay Patil, for the Respondent No.5. .......... CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. Date : 04th February, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.5. 2 The present Civil Application No.5435/2008 is preferred by the original Opponent No.3 Insurance Company for condonation of 560 days delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and award dated 10th January, 2007 passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge-4 & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Raigad-Alibaug in M.A.C.T. No.280/1996. 3 Few facts of the matter are as under:- *2* On 14.03.1996 the accident took place on Mumbai-Goa Highway in the vicinity of Sai Phata in which Bhagirathi dead on the spot. Therefore, legal heirs filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation to the tune of Rs.1 Lacs. The said petition has been decided by the Tribunal holding that the owner of vehicle and the Applicant/Insurance Company are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lac to the original claimants together with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from the date of registration of petition till final award within a period of two months and in default to deposit the said sum with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award till its realization in full. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the Applicant/ Insurance Company preferred the present First Appeal on 21.10.2008. 4 The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that initially the Applicant applied for certified copies of the judgment and award dated 10.01.2007 and the same were obtained and forwarded to the Applicant’s Panvel Office on or about 24.03.2007. However, those certified copies were misplaced and were not traceable in the Applicant’s Panvel Office inspite of repeated efforts. Therefore, the Advocate dealing with the matter once again applied for fresh certified copies of the judgment and award on 08.01.2008 *3* and the same were ready for delivery on 24.03.2008 which were actually delivered on 25.03.2008. Thereafter, the concerned Divisional Office i.e. Panvel Office vide its letter dated 08.05.2008 forwarded the said certified copies to the Advocate to take immediate steps for filing the appeal in this Court. The learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that the delay has been caused due to scrutiny of matter at every stage and seeking legal opinion as required for the Applicant being a public sector undertaking. These reasons are explained by the Applicant in paragraphs Nos.2 and 3 of the Civil Application which read as under:- “2. The Petitioners/Appellants state that the judgment and order was passed on 10.01.2007 and that the certified copy was obtained and forwarded to Appellant’s Panvel D.O. by the dealing on or about 24.03.2007 however unfortunately, the said certified copy was misplaced and was not traceable in Appellant’s said D.O. inspite of repeated efforts and therefore, the Dealing Advocate once again applied for fresh certified true copy of the judgment and order on or about 08.01.2008 and that the same was ready on 24.03.2008 which was taken delivery by the learned Dealing Advocate on 25.03.2008, who forwarded the same to the Petitioners/ Appellants’ concerned Divisional Office (D.O. Panvel) vide his letter dated 08.05.2008. Said D.O. after studying the matter, forwarded the same along with the Claim Folder/ File to Appellants’ Mumbai Regional Office-II in 2nd week of June, 2008. The said M.R.O. II vide their letter dated 23.06.2008, entrusted the matter to the present Advocates with instructions to file appeal in the matter. On receipt of the same, the present Advocates vide letter dated 11.07.2008 addressed to Appellants’ *4* Mumbai Regional Office-II interalia requesting them to issue Cheque for Rs.25,000/- for depositing u/s 173 of M.V. Act and also another cheque towards Court Fees. The present Advocates received the said cheques on 12.08.2008. 3. The Petitioners/ Appellants say that the appeal has been filed on or about 20.10.2008 and therefore, there is delay of 560 days. The Petitioners/ Appellants say and submit that delay has been caused due to scrutiny at every stage and seeking legal opinion, as required being Public Sector Undertaking and official exigencies and the reasons stated above which were beyond the control of the Petitioners/ Appellants. Therefore, the delay may kindly be condoned.” 5 It is crystal clear from the above paragraphs Nos.2 and 3 that the Applicant failed to disclose the date on which they firstly applied for certified copies of the judgment and award. Not only this but the Applicant failed to file an affidavit of the concerned officer in whose office the certified copies were misplaced. Therefore, in my view the Applicant failed to disclose the sufficient cause for condonation of 560 days delay in filing the First Appeal. Though the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have received a liberal construction in recent past, still the Court cannot ignore that the fact where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner and without disclosure of good and sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The application filed for condonation of delay in the present case hardly gives any *5* reason or cause much less a reasonable explanation for condoning the delay. Merely because the certified copies of the judgment and award of the Tribunal were misplaced in the Applicant’s Panvel Office, the same cannot be accepted without any affidavit in support from the concerned Officer. It is to be noted that the Apex Court in case of Ramlal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (AIR 1962 SC 361), held as under:- “In construing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. ” 6 In similar way, our High Court in the matter of Laxman N. Divekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1998(3) Bombay C.R. 291, held that there cannot be different standards for Government and private parties and though certain latitude can be given to the Government but discretion has to be exercised on well settled principles only. 7 Considering the above mentioned facts and *6* circumstances of the case and particularly considering the paragraphs Nos.2 and 3 of the Civil Application, I am of the opinion that the Applicant has failed to disclose any sufficient cause to consider the application for condonation of 560 days’ delay. Therefore, Civil Application No.5435/2008 is dismissed. In view of dismissal of Civil Application No.5435/2008, registration of the First Appeal is rejected. Civil Application No.5436/2008 for stay does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (K.K.TATED, J.)