Register this application as Civil Misc Case. 2. This is to dispose of an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant company namely the National Insurance Company for condonation of delay of 367 days in filing the appeal from the judgment and award dated 13.1.93 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Case No. TS (MAC) 2 of 1991 awarding compensation of Rs.1,12,000/- to the claimants-respondents as against the appellant company. The grounds for condonation of delay assailed by the appellant are as follows. 3. The appellant-insurance company received the judgment and award dated 13.1.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in short the learned Claims Tribunal hereinafter referred to, in TS (MAC) 2 of 1991 on 5.6.93 after applying for the certified copy of the award/ judgment on 16.1.1993. The last date for filing the appeal fell on 8.6.1993 after calculating 90 days time excluding the period in obtaining the certified copy of the award/judgment from the learned Claims Tribunal. From 8.6.93 to 10.6.94 i.e. 367 days delay was occurred/made by the Insurance Company due to their several correspondences to the Regional Office and the Head Office which are situated at Gauhati and Calcutta, respectively. In fact, there are 370 days delay at the time of the filing of the appeal from the impugned judgment and award on 13.6.94. The company was busy with their Lok Adalat cases during the months of March and April, 1994. Besides, their Branch Office which was conducting with the original suit situated at Dharmanagar, North Tripura. In the last part of March, 1994 the Regional Office of the appellant-Insurance Company got information after consulting the Legal Department of the said Head Office under several correspondences that the concerned dealing clerk was on leave and hospitalised due to his illness after the period of Lok Adalat, who later enjoined on duty in the last part of May, 1994 only. Thereafter the relevant file was handed over to the Branch Manager for taking views and even from the approved lawyer. After taking the legal views the Branch Manager sent the file to the Divisional Office further on 30.5.94 with a view to file an appeal at Agartala. Thereafter, on 7.6.94 the file was handed over to Mr. Thereafter the relevant file was handed over to the Branch Manager for taking views and even from the approved lawyer. After taking the legal views the Branch Manager sent the file to the Divisional Office further on 30.5.94 with a view to file an appeal at Agartala. Thereafter, on 7.6.94 the file was handed over to Mr. K.Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company who drafted the appeal on 9.6.94 and sent it to the Divisional Office for proper signature and proper affidavit. As 11.6.94 and 12.6.94 were holidays of the appellant Insurance Company, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the appeal on 13.6.94. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company contended that there was no intentional delay or laches on the part of the appellant-Insurance Company. 5. Sri K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the application for condonation of delay was filed by the appellant-Insurance Company with due diligence and bonafide. He also further contended that there is no willful negligence or laches or willful intention on the part of appellant-Insurance Company in filing the said condonation application after the lapse of 367 days after the expiry of the period of limitation. 6. Sri Bhattacharjee went on to submit that the appellant-Insurance Company has a very good case and that there are sufficient materials on the record for succeeding the case in the appeal. He also submits that the delay was caused due to the long and time consuming correspondences from Branch Office to Regional Office at Gauhati and then from Regional Office to Head Office at Calcutta with regard to opinion, advice and necessary orders etc in the matter. 7. Now the question which arises is that whether the appellant-Insurance Company has shown sufficient reasons or cause for such an inordinate delay in filing the appeal from the said impugned judgment and award and if, the cause and reasons so shown is acceptable or not on the available materials on record. In a case between Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another vs. Mst Katji & others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 , the Apex Court made the following observation with regard to the condonation of delay within the purview of section 5 of the Limitation Act at paragraph 3 of the judgment and the same is quoted below: "3. In a case between Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another vs. Mst Katji & others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 , the Apex Court made the following observation with regard to the condonation of delay within the purview of section 5 of the Limitation Act at paragraph 3 of the judgment and the same is quoted below: "3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause 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. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be graped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 8. Making a liberal approach on the above principles as laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the view that the appellant-Insurance Company has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. From the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case, it is also found mat certain inconvenience has been caused to the claimants-respondents by this long and delayed condonation application which has been presented and filed after expiry of 370 days from the date of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. 9. For the reasons stated above, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within the period of four weeks from today, failing which, the condonation application shall stand dismissed. 10. This application is disposed of with the observation and direction indicate above.