ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. HINABEN KAUSHIKBHAI SANGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act have been preferred to condone the delay of 2523 days, which has occurred in preferring appeals to challenge the common judgment and order dated 10th September, 2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), 2nd F.T.C. at Rajkot in MACP Nos.853/2004 & 559/2004; and order dated 07th Oct., 2016 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.61 of 2012.

(2.) We have heard Mr.Rathin P.Raval, learned advocate for the applicant - Insurance Company and Mr. Tushar Seth, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Sandeep R.Limbani, learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

(3.) Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the applicant vehemently urges that the applicant was diligently pursuing the remedy of review for correction of inadvertent delay that has crept in the common judgment and award and therefore, as such, cannot be said that applicant had abandoned the cause for questioning the judgment and award of the Tribunal, so far as it relates to the apportionment of the liability of the drivers of the offending vehicles involved in the accident. In support of his submission, he has relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in case of DSR Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2012) 6 SCC 782. He further urges that the applicant as well as other Insurance Company namely respondent no.7 herein had preferred the Review Application promptly within the limitation period and after rejection of the Review Application the present appeals are preferred within limitation period, therefore, as such technically it cannot be said that there is delay in preferring the appeals. He therefore, urges that the applications may be allowed and delay may be condoned.