Kulshrestha, Tiwari, JJ. - (1.)HEARD on M(C)P No. 531 of 2003. The appeal is time-barred by 952 days for which the appellants have filed the above application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to seek condonation. Learned counsel for the appellants has refereed to section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and to the decisions in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582 and State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, in support of the submission that sufficient cause must be construed liberally so as to advance justice and not to thwart it. She has further referred to a decision in Ravi Namadev Kavale v. Kittaswami, 1998 ACJ 1361 (Karnataka), of the Karnataka High Court in support of her contention that ignorance of provision and illiteracy are also the causes for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a decision in Prakash v. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C., 2000 ACJ 954 (SC), in which the Apex Court had not condoned the delay of 416 days in filing the appeal.
(2.)IN the present case the appellants have claimed compensation for the death of Ditya and they were granted a compensation of Rs. 1,05,000 by the award dated 25.4.2000 passed by the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mhow in Claim Case No. 11 of 1998. The appellants have apparently participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal and have received the amount in accordance with the direction contained therein, in connection whereof they must have been in constant touch with their counsel. It is, therefore, difficult to believe they were not appraised about the limitation for filing an appeal against the inadequacy of the compensation. It, therefore, does not appear that they were prevented on account of their illiteracy from filing the appeal in time. There is no justification for the delay of 952 days in filing this appeal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed as time-barred. Appeal dismissed.