Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Yadev Sharma, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Ms. Pritima Sunam, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2. The present application was listed for hearing on 04.07.2018 when the learned Counsel for the Applicant sought time to prepare for the matter and the application was listed for hearing on 09.07.2018. Mr. Yadev Sharma would seek to rely upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in re: N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1988) 7 SCC 123, in which it was held: "11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right 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. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis Mum (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."
(2.) This is an application seeking condonation of delay for a period of 122 days in filing the Appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Sikkim at Gyalzing (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) preferred under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the said Act) which provides: "173. Appeals.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court. Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time."
(3.) Section 173(1) of the said Act therefore mandates that any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an Appeal to the High Court. The proviso thereto however, gives discretion to the High Court to entertain the Appeal after the expiry of the said period of 90 days, if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Appeal in time. What is "sufficient cause" is although not explained in the said Act is however, well understood. The expression "sufficient cause" is used in different Acts. The Supreme Court has explained the expression "sufficient cause" appearing in different Acts in the following manner:;