(1.) The petitioners-driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident have filed this application for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar in Claim Case No. 107/89 decided on 24th July, 1995.
(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mehta on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Shaikh for the respondents. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has saddled the applicants with joint and several liability of the award. In our opinion, aggrieved by the award, each of the applicant was entitled to file appeal jointly or separately also. If they file joint appeal, technically it is not barred but if there is any delay in filing joint appeal then each of the applicant/appellant as entitled to file separate appeal is required to explain delay in filing the appeal. In the present case, it is only the Insurance Company who has tried to explain the delay on the ground of administrative reasons. There is not a word by applicants Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver as to how and why there is delay in filing appeal on their behalf. It is true that either of the applicants can apply for certified copy and on receipt thereof file an appeal and may join as appellant others who have not obtained certified copy, but if there is delay in filing appeal then each of them is required to explain the same provided others are joined as respondents. The application Nos. 1 and 2 have not applied for certified copy as it appears from there cord. It is also not stated by them that they have applied and obtained the certified copy on a particular date. It is not stated by them that why they could not prefer appeal separtately and if joined with Insurance Company, why not in time and why there is delay on their part. In absence of any explanation to for the delay the question of condonation thereof does not arise.
(3.) Mr. Mehta learned Advocate appearing for the applicants contended that owner and driver had instructed the Insurance Company to prefer an appeal. The applicant No.1-Company appears to be registered under the Companies Act and there would be no oral instructions. However, no written instructions are forthcoming on record. Assuming that instructions were given to prefer appeal, it is not known as to when it was given and to whom it was given and even after the instructions, why the appeal is not preferred in time in any case by owner and driver. Mr. Mehta, requests, therefore, to grant him time to file affidavit of applicants Nos. 1 and 2 to explain delay on their part. That request is turned down as there is no fact worth the name, stated in the application much less, a sufficient one to show why delay is caused in filing the appeal. In absence of any such fact question of condoning delay qua applicants Nos. 1 and 2, namely, owner and driver does not arise. Affidavit is required to be filed to support the statement of fact in the application. If no fact is stated, what is to be supported? Hence we have refused time to file affidavit. Delay on the part of appellants No. 1 and 2 need not be condoned and the condonation is refused.