/-. e^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Appellant Npn-applicantNo-3 Respondents Misc. Appeal No. 762 of 2003 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Krishna Complex, 1st Floor, Kutchery Chowk,Raipur, Tah. & District Raipur versus 1. Surendra Kumar S/o Punitram Sahu, aged 23 years, Driver. 2. Punitram Sahu, S/o Pahruram Sahu, aged 45 years, Registered Owner of Tractor No. C.G. 05/4395 & Trolley No. C.G. 05/4396 Both R/o Village Kurna, Thana & District Kanker(C.G.) Non-applicants No.1 & 2 3. Devkunwar Bai Wd/o Vikram Teli, aged 60 years. 4. Faguram, s/o Late Shri Vikram Teli, aged 45 years, Both R/o Village Kurna, Thana & District Kanker (C.G.) Applicants Misc. Appeal UnderSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present : Appellant by Shri Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, learned counsel Respondents No. 3 & 4 are absent. Respondent No.1 & 2 by Shri Sudeep Verma, learned counsel ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12tn of February, 2008) Heard on M.C.P.No.1260/2003 for condonation of delay of 41 days in filing this appeal. 2. The appellant has mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that due to closing year all the officers were very busy, and therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time. In the meantime, the limitation expired. It has also been mentioned that after recovering from 9^ the closing year, the appellant - insurance company started sorting out the papers in the office and the relevant file was discovered at some point of time, when, it is not mentioned. It is further stated that after taking advice from the counsel, the appeal was prepared and filed. 3. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that a liberal view should be taken while considering theapplication under section 5 ofthe Limitation Act. ^ •^ 4. Shri Sudeep Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2 opposes the application. 5. I have heard rival submissions. Itjs well settled that it is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the explanation which has to be considered while deciding an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Theappellant is an insurance company with a full-fledged office and legal network. The ground taken by the company only shows the callous attitude of the company in taking steps for preferring appeal. The case of the appellant cannot be equated with that of an uneducated, poor or illiterate litigant. After passing of the impugned award, the appellant - insurance company went into a complete slumber.took no steps for filing the appeal within the period of limitation and awoke only after the expiry of limitation. It has also not taken steps to make the statutory deposit as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. In this view of the matter, 1 am of the considered opinion that sufficient ground for condpnation of delay in filing this appeal has not been shown by the insurance company. M.C.P.No.1260/2003 for condonation of delay is dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. 7. In view of the above, M.C.P.No. 1261/2003 for grant of stay stands disposed of. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge