S. M. SONIJ :, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners-driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident have filed this application for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar in claim Case No. 107/89 decided on 24th July, 1995. ( 2 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. Mehta on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Shaikh for the respondents. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has saddled the applicants with joint and several liability of the award. In our opinion, aggrieved by the award, each of the applicant was entitled to file appeal jointly or separately also. If they file joint appeal, technically it is not barred but if there is any delay in filing joint appeal then each of the applicant/appellant as entitled to file separate appeal is required to explain delay in filing the appeal. In the present case, it is only the Insurance Company who has tried to explain the delay on the ground of administrative reasons. There is not a word by applicants Nos. 1 and 2 i. e. owner and driver as to how and why there is delay in filing appeal on their behalf. It is true that either of the applicants can apply for certified copy and on receipt thereof file an appeal and may join as appellant others who have not obtained certified copy, but if there is delay in filing appeal then each of them is required to explain the same provided others are joined as respondents. The application Nos. 1 and 2 have not applied for certified copy as it appears from there cord. It is also not stated by them that they have applied and obtained the certified copy on a particular date. It is not stated by them that why they could not prefer appeal separtately and if joined with Insurance company, why not in time and why there is delay on their part. In absence of any explanation to for the delay the question of condonation thereof does not arise. ( 3 ) MR. Mehta learned Advocate appearing for the applicants contended that owner and driver had instructed the Insurance Company to prefer an appeal. The applicant no. 1-Company appears to be registered under the Companies Act and there would be no oral instructions. ( 3 ) MR. Mehta learned Advocate appearing for the applicants contended that owner and driver had instructed the Insurance Company to prefer an appeal. The applicant no. 1-Company appears to be registered under the Companies Act and there would be no oral instructions. However, no written instructions are forthcoming on record. Assuming that instructions were given to prefer appeal, it is not known as to when it was given and to whom it was given and even after the instructions, why the appeal is not preferred in time in any case by owner and driver. Mr. Mehta, requests, therefore, to grant him time to file affidavit of applicants Nos. 1 and 2 to explain delay on their part. That request is turned down as there is no fact worth the name, stated in the application much less, a sufficient one to show why delay is caused in filing the appeal. In absence of any such fact question of condoning delay qua applicants Nos. 1 and 2, namely, owner and driver does not arise. Affidavit is required to be filed to support the statement of fact in the application. If no fact is stated, what is to be supported? Hence we have refused time to file affidavit. Delay on the part of appellants No. 1 and 2 need not be condoned and the condonation is refused. ( 4 ) SO far as the Insurance Company is concerned, delay being of 35 days, we construe it liberally and accept that on administrative grounds there would be delay and condone the delay on the part of Insurance Company. The position therefore now emerges is that delay application of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is liable to be dismissed and that of Insurance Company condoned. ( 5 ) WE are supported in our view by the judgment of the Karnatakka High Court in the case of Insrallation Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Anr. vs. Kanieka Raj and anr. 1989 0 ACJ 295. The relevant observation there reads as under:"2. The insurer has filed this appeal against the said award alongwith the insured as the appeal would be unmaintainable at the instance of the insurer alone. As there is a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal, an application, I. A. No. 1, under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is filed seeking condonation of such delay. The insurer has filed this appeal against the said award alongwith the insured as the appeal would be unmaintainable at the instance of the insurer alone. As there is a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal, an application, I. A. No. 1, under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is filed seeking condonation of such delay. In support of the application, an affidavit sworn to by the Assistant Divisional manager of the insurer is filed. That affidavit shows how delay occurred in the office of the insurer in processing these papers. There is nothing indicated in the affidavit as to why there was delay on the part of the insured in filing the appeal. The reasons given for the condonation of delay on behalf of the insurer cannot accure to the benefit of the insured, without whom the appeal would have been unmaintainable. In our view, the reasons given in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay of 90 days which has occurred in filing the appeal. " ( 6 ) HENCE, the application for condonation of delay qua the petitioners No. 1 and 2, namely, Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. and Hasam Adam Rajan- owner and driver of the vehicle is dismissed. The application of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.- petitioner No. 3 is allowed. Rule is made absolute qua the petitioner No. 3-Insurance Company while Rule is discharged qua the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd and Hasam adam Rajan with costs. .