JUDGMENT 1. - On the oral request made by the learned counsel for the appellant the names of the respondents No. 2 and 3 are deleted from the array of the respondents. Office is directed to put a note to this effect in the cause title, in red ink. 2. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties the application filed by the appellants u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act mistaken up for final bearing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act and perused the entire record of the matter. 4. Though, for the reasons stated in the application there would not have been any difficulty to condone the delay of 24 days occurred in filing of the appeal, but upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the matter we are satisfied that the appellants have no case on merits and, as such, no useful purpose will be served to condone the delay. 5. Issue No. 1 frame by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar reads as under : "Aaya Prashangat Vahan R.J 02-G. 977 Ke Chaalak Vipakshi Sankhya 1 Ke Dwara Dinank 28.11.1992 Ko Sawa Saat Baje Subaha Gram Nagla Kesariya Thana Kathumar Mein Ukta Vahanko Upeksha/utaawalepan Se Chalaakar Kl Gaei Durghatna Ke Parinaam Swaroop Bus R.Ju. 14-P 261 Kshatigrast Huin ?" 6. After consider the evidence produced by the respective parties the : finding on issue No. 1 has been recorded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the appellant but only on the basis of this finding, we are of the opinion that, the appellant is not entitled to get the compensation claimed in the claim petition. 7. Issue No. 4 has been decided by the Tribunal against the appellant burden to prove the Issue No. 4 was on the appellants. AD-1 Mahesh Chand 1 Modi was appeared in the witness-box; he proved documents Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, the certificate and policy of the insurance. He has not prepared these documents. He is unable to satisfy how Rs. 1.55,305/- has been mentioned in the certificate as the damages suffered by the vehicle of the appellants in the accident. 1 8. AD-2, Babu Lal, was the Conductor on the Bus on the day of the accident. 1 and 2, the certificate and policy of the insurance. He has not prepared these documents. He is unable to satisfy how Rs. 1.55,305/- has been mentioned in the certificate as the damages suffered by the vehicle of the appellants in the accident. 1 8. AD-2, Babu Lal, was the Conductor on the Bus on the day of the accident. Though he has stated in the statement that in the accident the bus suffered the damages of Rs. 1,50,000/- but except this vague statement he could not furnish any details thereof. 9. AD-3 Subhash Chand was produced by the appellants in support of 2 their case; from his statement only it is established that after the accident the vehicle remained for 14 days at the Police Station. What for 14 days the vehicle remained at the Police Station, it is not established. 10. That apart the period of 19 days alleged to have been taken in repair of bus has also not been satisfactorily explained. In the absence of the 2 cogent and material evidence it cannot be taken and rightly it has not been taken by the Tribunal that Rs. 3117/- per day the appellants suffered the loss due to the remaining of the vehicle at the Police Station for 14 days and due to remaining under repair for 19 days. In the presence of this evidence which came on record the learned Tribunal has rightly not accepted the claim of compensation made by the appellants. The learned Single Judge has not committed any error not to make any interference in the appeal. 11. In the result the application filed by the appellants u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act fails and the same is dismissed. 12. Consequent upon the dismissal of the application u/S. 5 of the 3 Limitation Act, the appeal does not survive and the same is dismissed as barred by limitation. Since the appeal itself has been dismissed, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed.Appeal stay application and application for condonation of delay dismissed. *******