- (1.) The matter comes up for consideration of application (S.B.Civil Misc. Application No.432/2015) preferred on behalf of the appellants under section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 183 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and award dated 05.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh (for short 'the tribunal' hereinafter) in MAC Case No.203/2007. In the application, following averments have been made: "1. That the appellants are filing the above noted appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the impugned judgment and award dated 05.01.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh in Claim Case No.203/2007. A bare perusal of the appeal reveals that the appellants are having strong prima facie case in their favour and have every chances of success in the appeal. 2. That the appellants were not having knowledge about the judgment and award because earlier the notices of the appellant no.1 were served upon his brother and the notices of the appellant no.2 was received himself but he informed the appellant no.1 for engaging the advocate. Ultimately both the persons could not engage their counsel due to family members, therefore, they are not having knowledge about the pendency of the claim petition. Ultimately the relatives of the appellant no.1 informed him on 22.08.2015 about the award and stated that he would pay the amount of Rs.8 lacs to the claimants. The appellants receiving the information met with their advocate and applied for certified copy and after receiving the certified copy he contacted to advocate at Jodhpur and got drafted the appeal. As such the delay caused in filing the appeal is not intentional and same is bonafide one, therefore, deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice."
(2.) It is noticed that when the appellants did not put in their appearance before the tribunal despite service of notice of the claim petition, the tribunal proceeded exparte against them on 19.09.2007. In the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellants have admitted the service of notice of cliam petition upon them but have simply said that both the appellants could not engage their counsel before the tribunal due to family members. In the opinion of the Court, the reason given by the appellants for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is not only vague but unconvincing also.
(3.) Hence, no case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is made out. The application preferred on behalf of the appellants under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal as well as the stay petition also stand dismissed.;