JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of both the parties heard an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that no notice was served upon the appellant, which is clear from the record itself and also stated that even the driver of the appellant-respondent No. 6 was shown to be served by publication of notice in newspaper published from Mumbai whereas the respon- dent No. 6-driver was resident of Nander, District Usmanabad, which is clear from the award itself. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants is not in position to dispute these facts in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.K. Prasad v. P. Aruinugam reported in Western Law Cases (SC) 611 , This is a case wherein the claim of Rs. 7,27,144/- has been allowed in favour of the claimants against the appellant and according to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellants were deprived of total opportunity of hearing. 4. Since the service of the appellant and respondent No. 6 have not been in accordance with law and the appellant-respondent No. 6 had no knowledge of the proceedings before the Tribunal, therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 5. Hence, the delay in filing appeal is condoned. Office is directed to register the appeal and list this appeal today in the Court. *******