JUDGMENT : 1. This order shall dispose of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter 'Tribunal'), being claim petition No. 100/Claims titled as Surinder Kumar Thusu vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. dated 31.05.2010. 2. The facts those emerge from the perusal of the case are that an award/judgment came to be passed by the Tribunal on 31.05.2010, against the applicant-company herein being respondent No. 1 in the claim petition. 3. It is stated that the applicant-company upon receipt of the award from the counsel referred the same along with the detailed opinion of the dealing counsel to the retainer of the company for his opinion in the matter being a usual practice thereon. It is stated that the retainer of the applicant-company after going through the entire record including the award/judgment as also the opinion of the dealing counsel, submitted an opinion that the award be satisfied subject to the verification of the medical bills and that while going through the award it came to be noticed that the respondent/non-applicant No. 1 herein had only enclosed the medial bill of Rs.2,61,777.95 and that the Tribunal wrongly allowed an amount of Rs.4,22,509/- probably on the basis of the wrong calculation made by the respondent/non-applicant No. 1 herein. 4. It is stated that an application under Section 152 CPC came to be filed by the applicant-company herein seeking amendment of the award in this regard before the Tribunal wherein a notice came to be issued to the respondent/non-applicant No. 1 and in response whereof he put his appearance and sought time for filing objections. 5. It is being stated that a cross appeal pending before the Tribunal filed by the applicant came to be withdrawn on 24.02.2012, under the bonafide impression that owing of the pendency of the aforesaid application the cross objections/appeal may not be appropriate. 6. It is being stated that in terms of the order dated 06.03.2012, the above application under Section 152 CPC came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on the premises that since an appeal in the matter is pending before this Court, wherein award is under challenge, as such, it will not be proper for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the merits of the application. 7. 7. According to the applicant-company subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order dated 06.03.2012, a copy of the order was provided to the company for further necessary action and that the legal hub of the company sent the order of Tribunal to the retainer of the company for his opinion and after sending the entire file for his perusal, the retainer opined that the company should file a regular appeal in the High Court against the award as well as against the order dated 06.03.2012 (supra). 8. It is being further stated that upon receipt of the entire case file along with the opinion of the retainer, the file was handed over to the present counsel for filing of the appeal, and after going through the file, retainer informed the applicant-company to prepare a cheque for an amount of Rs.25,000/- as a requisite for filing of an appeal and thereafter appeal was prepared on 07.06.2012. 9. It is being further stated that the applicant-company was required to file an appeal within a period of 90 days from the date of passing of the award excluding the period spent in obtaining the certified copy of the award. 10. It is being stated that the applicant-company has been pursuing the remedy before the Tribunal and that the time spent thereon is required to be excluded and thus, the delay caused in filing of the appeal requires to be condoned. 11. It is being next stated that delay occurred in the whole process was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the appeal involves substantial questions of law warranting condonation of delay in the interest of justice as well. 12. Respondent-non-applicant No. 1 has filed objections in opposition to the instant application and seeks dismissal of the same on the premise that though the award was passed on 31.05.2010 and the counsel for the applicant-company applied for a certified copy of the same on 01.05.2012 and the same was issued to the applicant-company on 05.05.2012. 13. 12. Respondent-non-applicant No. 1 has filed objections in opposition to the instant application and seeks dismissal of the same on the premise that though the award was passed on 31.05.2010 and the counsel for the applicant-company applied for a certified copy of the same on 01.05.2012 and the same was issued to the applicant-company on 05.05.2012. 13. It is being stated that the applicant-company earlier filed an application under Section 152 CPC before the Tribunal for correction of the award which came to be disposed of on 29.07.2010, whereby Tribunal by way of corrigendum corrected the figures regarding the medical expenses awarded in favour of the respondent/ non-applicant No. 1 in the award as Rs.4,62,509/- and that thereafter the applicant-company has taken more than 730 days for filing of the instant appeal. 14. The filing of the cross-appeal is being denied by the applicant-company and that the instant appeal is stated to have been filed after the respondent/non-applicant No. 1 filed an appeal being CIMA No. 592/2010 on 01.09.2010. 15. It is being further stated that the delay caused in filing the appeal has been on account of willful and negligent dealing by the applicant-company. It is also stated that the applicant-company has not explained the facts about the sending of the file to the retainer counsel and receiving of his opinion thereof. It is further stated that the application filed by the applicant-company under Section 152 CPC came to be disposed of by the Tribunal on 29.07.2010 instead of 06.03.2012. The applicant-company is alleged to have given incorrect dates in this regard. It is being stated that there is no order passed by the Tribunal on 06.03.2012. It is being denied that there is any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 16. In view of the complicated conflicting versions stated by the parties in their respective pleadings it became imperative to summon the record of the case from the Tribunal. 17. Perusal of the summoned record would reveal that after passing of the award dated 31.05.2010, the applicant-company herein moved an application on 29.07.2010 for correcting a typographical error regarding award of compensation to the claimant qua the medical bills to the tune of Rs.7,22,509/- instead of Rs.4,22,509/-. 17. Perusal of the summoned record would reveal that after passing of the award dated 31.05.2010, the applicant-company herein moved an application on 29.07.2010 for correcting a typographical error regarding award of compensation to the claimant qua the medical bills to the tune of Rs.7,22,509/- instead of Rs.4,22,509/-. The said application came to be disposed of by the Tribunal on 29.07.2010 in terms of a corrigendum whereby it ordered that at serial No. 1 in the award portion instead of Rs.7,22,509/- a sum of Rs.4,22,509/- be read as the medical expenses. 18. Perusal of the record further reveals that on 08.10.2010 an application came to be filed by the applicant-company under Section 152 of CPC praying for amendment of the award in respect of the medical expenses for an amount of Rs.2,61,777.95 instead of Rs.4,22,509/- on the premise that the said amount stands awarded to the respondent- non-applicant No. 1 upon inaccurate calculation of the medical expenses. 19. Record further reveals that in the said application notice was issued on 09.11.2010 and respondent-non-applicant No. 1 herein appeared through his counsel on 17.02.2011 and sought time for filing objections. It is this application which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal as withdrawn in terms of order dated 06.03.2012 (supra), as sought by the applicant-company. 20. Perusal of the record further reveals that from 08.10.2010 till 06.03.2012, the said application remained pending before the Tribunal. 21. Before proceeding to analyze the application and grounds urged therein for condonation of delay it would be appropriate and advantageous to refer to the legal position enumerated by the Apex Court on the subject of condonation of delay. 22. The law on the subject of section 5 of the Limitation Act is no more res integra and there is a long line of decisions rendered and delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject. 23. It is established that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigor prescribed by a statute. Although Section 5 of J&K Limitation Act Samvat, 1995 provides for extension of the period of limitation in certain cases, and appellant/applicant seeking such extension is required to satisfy the court that there has been a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed period. 24. Although Section 5 of J&K Limitation Act Samvat, 1995 provides for extension of the period of limitation in certain cases, and appellant/applicant seeking such extension is required to satisfy the court that there has been a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed period. 24. Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Bheru Lal, 2020 (10) SSC 654, at paras 3 and 5 has observed as under:- "3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government [LAO v. Katiji]. This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:- "(27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. (28) Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. (29) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. (30) Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay." Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded. 5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay." 25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom vs. Bhargavi Amma, (2008) 8 SCC 321 , at para 13 (iii) enunciated besides others the following principle qua an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:- "(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation." 26. A Reference to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276 , titled as P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala would also be appropriate and advantageous, wherein at para 6 following is noticed. A Reference to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276 , titled as P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala would also be appropriate and advantageous, wherein at para 6 following is noticed. "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs." 27. Keeping in mind the above legal position enunciated by the Apex Court what emerges from the perusal of the record and pleadings of the appellant/applicant the appeal accompanying the instant application has not been filed by the applicant herein purportedly and allegedly owing to the pendency of the aforesaid application (supra) filed under Section 152 CPC, which however, cannot by any sense of imagination said to have been an impediment to the applicant company in filing an appeal against the award as the same sought correction in the calculations/figures of the award qua the medical bills of the claimant and had been earlier as well sought and obtained. 28. Ironically, nothing has been stated in the application in hand as to under whose instructions the said application came to be filed on 08.10.2010, and kept pending till 06.03.2012, inasmuch as, without indicating as to upon whose instructions the said application was decided to be withdrawn. The conduct and approach of the applicants in this regard manifestly tend to show that the same has been abnormal and full of lapses. The application even does not contain true and correct facts. Want of diligence and bonafides are totally untraceable. 29. The application in hand seemingly is filed with the impression that in seeking condonation of delay, the expresses 'sufficient cause' would receive as liberal construction in favor of the appellant-applicant being an agency of the Government. The application even does not contain true and correct facts. Want of diligence and bonafides are totally untraceable. 29. The application in hand seemingly is filed with the impression that in seeking condonation of delay, the expresses 'sufficient cause' would receive as liberal construction in favor of the appellant-applicant being an agency of the Government. It is however, manifest and without any doubt that the explanation offered by the appellant /applicant in the application in hand cannot by any sense of imagination said to be sufficient, plausible, and cogent. The explanation per se is cryptic and casual. Even the affidavit accompanying the application in support thereof is a stereotyped one. 30. Risking repetition it is worth mentioning herein that the instant application relates to condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against an award passed in favour of the non-applicant/respondent who suffered a disability on account of a vehicular accident. A claim lodged before the Tribunal and an award passed thereon in such cases aims at providing cheap and speedy remedy and justice by way of compensation to a victim. A justice oriented approach thus, in such matters is possible if the courts lean against the casual and non-diligent approach and unbecoming conduct of the applicants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals against such awards, unless, a sufficient cause is shown in tune and line with the principles and propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said principle of sufficient cause, however, as noticed above is missing in the instant case. 31. Viewed in the context what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the application in hand is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, as a consequence whereof the accompanying appeal shall also stand dismissed. 32. Dismissed along with connected IA(s). 33. Record remitted back to the Tribunal. 34. Registry to list the connected appeal being MA No. 592/2010 on 06.04.2021.