ORDER : G.D. Saxena, J. Today the instant appeal viz. MA. No. 444/2012 has been listed along with other connected matters bearing M.A. Nos. 445/2012, 446/2012, 447/2012, 448/2012, 449/2012, 450/2012, 451/2012, 452/2012, 453/2012, 454/2012, 455/2012, 456/2012, 457/2012, 458/2012,459/2012,460/2012, 461/2012,462/2012 and 463/2012. All the appeals have been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and hence, today they all have been listed for consideration of applications for condonation of such delay. Since the proceedings initiated by the respective claimants before the learned Tribunal are the outcome of common accident and similar orders have been passed in all the matters although on different dates so also as the ground mentioned in all applications for condonation of delay is similar, hence, the applications for condonation of delay filed in all the appeals are heard analogously and decided vide this common order. There is a delay of near about one and half years in filing the appeals. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that after passing the interim award by the learned Tribunal the file was misplaced in the Division Office of appellant-company and the same could not be traced out for a considerable period and immediately after tracing out the file review applications were filed by the appellant/company before learned Tribunal which were dismissed and after that these appeals have been filed within limitation prescribed under the law. It is further submitted by learned Counsel that the delay caused in filing the appeals is based on bona fide, hence, the same may be condoned. 2. On the contrary, learned Counsel present on behalf of the respondents/claimants submits that the ground taken by the appellant/company that the delay has been caused due to the fault of the employees/officers of the company, as the case file was misplaced, is not sufficient to condone such an inordinate delay of one and half years. It is further submitted by her that after passing the interim award, the appellant/company preferred review applications along with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, however, the review applications have been dismissed as time barred so also on merit On these premised submissions, learned Counsel prays that the applications for condonation of delay filed by the appellant/company may be rejected with costs and in consequence thereto appeals may be dismissed. 3. 3. No doubt, it is true that there is an inordinate delay in preferring the appeals and the reason assigned by learned Counsel for the appellant/company for condonation of such delay is that the file was misplaced in the office of the Company, but that alone cannot be sufficient to condone the aforesaid inordinate delay caused in filing the appeals, as in such circumstance the Court has also to consider interest of justice since the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance. substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage' caused by reason of legal injury, The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. [Held in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 ]. Further, on due consideration of the submissions put forth by learned Counsel for the appellant/company, it appears that although there is lapse on the part of the appellant/company, but the explanation given by the appellant/company does not smack of mala fides and it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, on the other hand it is found that the delay has occasioned due to negligence of some employees/officers of the appellant/company and due to the fault of some employees/officers, plea of appellant/company cannot be turned down and door cannot be shut against appellant/company. Thus, in the interest of justice in order to provide an opportunity of hearing to the appellant/company, the applications for condonation of delay filed in all the appeals are hereby allowed and the aforesaid delay caused in filing the appeals is condoned subject to depositing cost of Rs. 5,000 (Rs. five thousand only) by the appellant/Insurance Company within three weeks before the learned Tribunal, which shall be payable to the claimants in equal proportion. 4. It is also directed that the Insurance Company shall make an enquiry into the matter and shall have a liberty to recover the cost amount from the erring employees or officers responsible for mishandling the file which resulted in aforesaid inordinate delay in filing the appeals. 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the parties expressed their consensus for hearing all the matters finally. Hence, with their consent the matters are heard finally and decided vide this common order. 6. The facts of the case in brief are that on 16.2.2010 marriage of one Brijendra Singh son of Rajveer Singh Tomar was scheduled and on that occasion, marriage procession (Barat) was going from village Sahaspura to village Rudrapura, District Jalon in a bus bearing No. MP06/A7077 in which family members, relatives and other persons having intimacy with the family of Brijendra Singh were sitting. It has been alleged that in the midway driver of the vehicle lost his control over the bus due to rash and negligent driving, as a result the bus turned turtle in Pahuj river and about 22 persons died and number of persons received injuries. Hence, the legal heirs of deceased persons/injured filed claim cases before the learned Tribunal u/s 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, passed an interim award in favour of the claimants thereby directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount of interim award of Rs. 50,000 to the claimants within a period of three months with liberty to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle in case they fail to prove valid and effective driving licence, valid permit and fitness. Thereafter, review applications were filed by the Insurance Company, which have been dismissed as time barred as well as on merit. Hence, the Insurance Company has preferred these appeals assailing the aforesaid orders passed by learned Tribunal. 7. Thereafter, review applications were filed by the Insurance Company, which have been dismissed as time barred as well as on merit. Hence, the Insurance Company has preferred these appeals assailing the aforesaid orders passed by learned Tribunal. 7. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the direction given while passing interim award in favour of claimants by the learned Tribunal in regard to payment of amount of interim award by the Insurance Company to the claimants is wrong and against the law, although liberty has been extended to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle in case they fail to prove valid and effective driving licence, valid permit and fitness. By inviting attention of this Court towards Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act it is submitted by him that under this section there is no provision that the amount of interim award shall be paid by the Insurance Company, on the contrary, under the said section it is specifically provided that the amount of interim award shall be payable by the owner of the offending vehicle. Further, it is pointed out by learned Counsel that in claim case No. 166/2011, instituted out of the same accident which is the subject matter of present appeals, final award has been passed by the learned Tribunal on 17.12.2012 in which Insurance Company has been exonerated from all liabilities and, therefore, no liability to pay the amount of interim award under the no fault liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company in the present matters. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel placed reliance in Smt. Yallwwa and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another (2007) 6 SCC 657 , Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raj Kishore Jethy and Others (1999) ACJ 858, and United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Serjerao and Others (2008) 7 SCC 425 , and submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal against the Insurance Company is wrong, perverse and against the law, hence, prayed that by allowing the appeals the Insurance Company may be exonerated from the liability of payment of amount of interim award and the amount deposited by the Insurance Company in compliance of interim award may be ordered to be refunded. 8. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the interim award and giving direction to the Insurance Company to pay the amount thereof to the claimants. She submits that the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify liability of the owner. She further submits that by the impugned direction no injury is caused to the Insurance Company as simultaneously the learned Tribunal has also extended liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle in case they fail to prove valid and effective driving licence, valid permit and fitness. In support of her contention she has placed reliance upon Anki and Others Vs. Kallu and Others (2008) ACJ 2513, and Rajaram Vs. Kasaliya and Others (2013) ACJ 598. On these, premised submissions, learned Counsel prays that the appeals filed by the Insurance Company may be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that at the time of accident the offending bus was being driven by one Harisingh owned by one Surendra Singh. It also appears that the bus was insured with the appellant/ Insurance Company under the comprehensive policy for the period from 9.5.2009 to 8.5.2010 and under the policy liability of 35 passengers is covered. Other terms and conditions are also mentioned in the policy. 10. The moot question involved in all the appeals which is required to be adjudicated is "as to whether the amount of interim award passed u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault, can be directed to be paid by the Insurance Company or not though liberty is extended to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle in case they fail to prove valid and effective driving licence, valid permit and fitness". To deal with this point properly, it would be apt to quote Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in its entirety, which runs as under : 140. To deal with this point properly, it would be apt to quote Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in its entirety, which runs as under : 140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault-(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under Sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of (fifty thousand rupees) and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of (twenty-five thousand rupees). (3) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force : Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this Section or u/s 163A. Bare reading of the aforesaid provision of Section 140 of the Act makes it crystal clear that it prescribes liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault and by this provision no fault liability is cast on the owner of the vehicle and not on the Insurance Company. This has also been held in United India Co. Ltd. (supra). Although, at this stage itself it has been found that it is the owner not the Insurance Company who has to pay the amount of interim award to the claimants, yet still the question remains "as to whether what would be the position if the owner succeeds to prove that there is no breach of the policy and liability is casted upon the Insurance Company". In this regard, I think it apposite to quote paras 8 and 9 of the judgment in Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), placed reliance by learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, which reads thus : 8. No doubt a detailed inquiry or taking of evidence is not contemplated at the stage of Section 140 of the Act, but still the Tribunal is required to make a summary inquiry to arrive at prima facie satisfaction of existence of the basic ingredients. It is not and cannot be the law that an interim award is to be given on a mere application. Even before giving an interim no fault award the Tribunal is to be prima facie satisfied that- (i) death or permanent disablement has been caused by the alleged accident; (ii) the offending vehicle and the risk involved were covered by a valid insurance policy at the material point of time; and (iii) the materials on record ex facie do not disclose any breach of material condition of the policy of insurance. Prima facie satisfaction on point No. (i) will make the owner liable. To hold the Insurance Company liable prima facie satisfaction on the 2nd and 3rd points is also necessary. If on the face of the document of insurance and the factual position emerging from the materials on record, it prima facie appears to the Tribunal that a material condition of the insurance policy has been infringed it should not hold the Insurance Company liable to pay the interim award. If on the face of the document of insurance and the factual position emerging from the materials on record, it prima facie appears to the Tribunal that a material condition of the insurance policy has been infringed it should not hold the Insurance Company liable to pay the interim award. However, the owner will be entitled to establish after adducing evidence at the final hearing that there was no breach of condition or that he was not responsible for the alleged breach and to get reimbursement of the amount paid as interim award from the insurer. In such case owner will have to satisfy the interim no fault award. The claimant will not suffer inasmuch as he will get the compensation u/s 140 of the Act of 1988 from the owner. 9. In the present case, the prima facie factual position is that the offending motor cycle was being driven by a minor, who is disqualified to drive a motor cycle and to obtain a driving licence. Such being the ex facie position, Tribunal erred in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay no fault award. However, it will be open to the owner of the vehicle to establish after leading necessary evidence at the stage of final hearing that he was not at all responsible for the said breach and if such case is established the Tribunal may ask the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner for the payments made by him. In view of the summary nature of the inquiry at the stage of Section 140, it is not possible for the Tribunal to call upon the owner to establish at the stage of no fault award that he had no control over the situation and he cannot be held responsible for the breach. Thus, from the above it has become clear like a noon day that in case the owner succeeds in establishing that there is no breach of any material condition of the policy of insurance and proves valid and effective driving licence of driver, valid permit and fitness, the Tribunal may ask the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner for the payments made by him. 11. 11. From the foregoing discussions, there remains no scintilla of doubt in my mind in holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay amount of interim award passed u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault, until and unless the owner succeeds in establishing after leading necessary evidences that there is no breach of insurance policy and he had no control over the situation and cannot be held responsible for the breach, however, it is the owner who has to satisfy the interim award and pay the compensation ordered thereunder to the claimants. 12. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Insurance Company succeed and are hereby allowed. The Insurance Company is exonerated from satisfying the interim award passed by the Tribunal and payment of compensation ordered thereunder and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, owner of the vehicle is hereby held liable to pay the amount of interim award to the claimants as ordered by the learned Tribunal as under the law he is vicariously liable for negligent act of his driver to satisfy the interim award amount, which shall now be paid by him within a period of four weeks from today, else it will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of this order till realization, however, it shall be open to the owner to establish after leading necessary evidence at the time of final hearing that there is no breach of policy of insurance and in that case, the Tribunal may ask the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner for the payments made by him under the interim award. However, it is directed that if the amount has been deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company in compliance of the interim award passed by the Tribunal and paid to the claimants, it can be recovered by the appellant/Insurance Company in accordance with law. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal is directed to conclude the trial of all cases within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.