JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The petitioner's claim application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short) having been rejected by the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sundargarh, opposite party No. 1, on the ground of limitation, he has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said order. 2. The petitioner, it is alleged, met with an accident on 15.9.1992. Since he sustained severe injuries and his right leg was fractured, he was admitted in Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela, where he underwent treatment as an in-patient till 21.3.1993. After being discharged from the hospital, he had joined his duty on 22.3.1993 and obtained all relevant papers from his department and the hospital on 26.3.1993, whereafter he left for Sambalpur, consulted his advocate, drafted the claim petition and filed the same on 30.3.1993. Since there was delay of 15 days in preferring the claim, opposite party No. 1, upon hearing the petitioner, rejected the petition vide order Annexure-5, observing that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 3. Proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act envisages that Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after expiry of the period of six months but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. In the present case, admittedly there was delay for 15 days in approaching the court. The provision of Section 166 of the Act being beneficial one, liberal view should have been taken in considering the prayer for condonation of delay when sufficient cause has been shown in not filing the application in time. For considering 'sufficient cause', reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, and G. Ramegowda, Major and Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore where it has been held that the expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, case of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 4. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances coupled with the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, we are inclined to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the delay is condoned. The opposite party No. 1, viz., First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sundargarh, is directed to admit the claim application and proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. V.A. Mohta, C.J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed