- (1.) THE appellants-claimants have laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988'), against the impugned judgment and award dated 31st of May 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deedwana. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other materials on record dismissed the claim of the appellants.
(2.) THE office has reported that this appeal is barred by 687 days. For seeking condonation of delay, the appellants have filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for explaining this inordinate delay. The said application of the appellants is opposed by the respondent No.3 insurance company by way of filing reply, stating therein that the averments contained in the application are absolutely vague and mellow. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(3.) A glance at the application makes it amply clear that the appellants have not tendered any explanation much less plausible explanation for inordinate delay of 687 days. The averments contained in the application are absolutely vague and cryptic. True it is, that the sufficient cause, as envisaged under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is to be construed liberally, but then a total callousness on the part of a litigant cannot be overlooked while considering prayer for condonation of delay. In the instant case, the reasons incorporated in the application for condonation of delay are bereft of material particulars and are absolutely bald and unspecific. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 687 days. Condoning such an inordinate delay for mere askance clearly amounts to giving complete go-by to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is not at all desirable. Thus, I am not persuaded to accede to the request of the learned counsel for condonation of delay and that being so the application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.;