Liberal condonation of delay in motor accident appeals applies where the explanation is bona fide and reasonable.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act permits a court to entertain an appeal after the prescribed period where sufficient cause is shown, and the provision must be applied liberally in light of the Act's beneficial purpose of securing just compensation for accident victims. A short delay in a motor accident claim, if bona fide, reasonably explained, and not marked by mala fides or negligence, should not be refused on hypertechnical grounds. On that approach, the 45-day delay was sufficiently explained and ought to have been condoned; the refusal to condone was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: Section 173 confers a discretionary power on the High Court to entertain an appeal after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown. The provision falls within a beneficial legislation intended to secure just compensation for victims of motor accidents, and therefore calls for a liberal and remedial interpretation rather than a strict or technical one. While the explanation for delay must still be bona fide and reasonable, the court must balance the conduct of both parties and the nature of the delay. A short delay in a motor accident claim, when properly explained and untainted by mala fides or negligence, should not be rejected on hypertechnical grounds.

Conclusion: The delay was sufficiently explained and ought to have been condoned. The refusal to condone the delay was unsustainable.

---