In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 3711 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 22, 2009 New India Assurance Company Limited .. Appellant Vs. Sumer Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J This appeal filed by the Insurance Company is against the order dated 6.10.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, whereby, while accepting the claim petition, it awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,68,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The main grievance of the company is that the tractor was not being used for the agricultural purpose and as soon as it attached with the trolley, it is converted into commercial one and as such, in that situation it could not be used to carry for the passengers unless except under a valid route permit, therefore, the Tribunal has fell in error while awarding compensation. Arguments heard. This appeal being delayed by 109 days, is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. Having examined the contents of the application it does not contain any cogent and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay, therefore, the delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course unless it is proved on record that there are sufficient grounds to do the same. Even otherwise, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the injured along with his son Raj Kanwar and Mohar Singh were going to village Ked for bringing wheat and turra (fodder) in the offending vehicle driven by Brij Lal respondent No.2. In that sense, the F.A.O. No. 3711 of 2009 -2- *** injured cannot be said to be gratuitous passenger. He is neither owner nor driver of the vehicle, therefore, it cannot be said that tractor trolley was used for commercial purpose at that time. To bring the fodder and wheat is a part of the agricultural business and it could be used for the same by the owner. Even otherwise, this appeal being time barred is not maintainable. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Resultantly, the accompanying appeal also fails. July 22, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge