IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 845 OF 2007 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 2733 OF 2007 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ... Applicant Versus MRS. MARIA LAURA XAVIER AND 8 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Mr. Jahish Mahumbrey, Advocate for Respondent No.8. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 28th February, 2008 ORAL ORDER The Applicant herein was the Insurer of one of the vehicles which were involved in the accident and which gave rise to a Claim Petition filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 7 on account of husband/father of the said Respondents. By Award dated 2-12-2006 the said Respondents were held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 16,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant/Insurer concedes that as no appeal nor writ was maintainable against the said Award of the M.A.C.T. dated 2-12-2006 the Applicant filed a Revision Petition and to condone the delay of 210 days, in filing the same, the present application for condonation of delay has been filed. The facts are set out in the application and it is rather strange to note that the Advocate appearing for the Applicant/Insurer before the M.A.C.T. did not know that no appeal was maintainable by the Insurer in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in a decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others(2002) 7 SCC 456) and also in the absence of written permission being taken in terms of Section 170 of the M. V. Act, 1988. Learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 has prepared a chart indicating the delays which have not been explained. The said chart is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out, based on the said chart that the Award was made on 2-12-2006 and a certified copy of the same was supplied to the Advocate for the Applicant/Insurer on 12-12-2006 and the Advocate held it for 22 days before sending the same to the Advocate of the Insurance Company on 3-1-2007. Learned Senior Counsel then points out that time for preferring the appeal or revision expired on 12-2-2007 and again learned Senior Counsel submits that there is no explanation for 72 days the Regional Office took to convey their approval. Learned Senior Counsel then points out that the Advocate of the Applicant at Panaji held the matter with him for 30 days knowing that the period of limitation had expired and all that he could have done was make just a phone call and find out from the Advocate from Margao whether the said Advocate at Margao had filed any application under Section 170 of the said Act, and, had obtained orders thereon from the M.A.C.T. Learned Senior Counsel then points out that the Advocate at Panaji took 47 days to return the papers since the driver and the owner were not available and this again inspite of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision referred to herein above. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that there was further delay of 14 days and again another 14 days and yet another 8 days as set out in the said reply. On behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 7, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala((1997) 7 SCC 556) wherein it is stated that the Court is required to record any satisfaction that the explanation for the delay was either reasonable or satisfactory, which is an essential prerequisite to condone the delay. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has also stated that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala and another((2007) 2 SCC 322) wherein the Apex Court has again reiterated that delay cannot be condoned merely on sympathetic ground, when not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained. It is also stated that the delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason. It is again rather unfortunate that inspite of the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others(supra) the Applicant, after knowing that the time limit to file appeal or revision had lapsed way back on 12-2-2007 vested more time in search of the driver and the owner of the vehicle to file the appeal and thus wasted another 47 days. It appears that the Applicant took the matter of filing this revision very casually and carelessly. It does not appear that they pursued the matter diligently. It is now well settled that it is not the length of the delay which matters but acceptability of the explanation which is given to condone the same and satisfactory explanation is all that gives jurisdiction to the Court to condone the same. Considering the application filed, and the reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, in my view, the Applicant has failed to explain the delay satisfactorily. Application therefore deserves to be dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.