>Y) .<r z. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No. 170/2006 Slngle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. ADDeijant/ Defendant No. 1 Res^ondenV CiaJmantNo.1 Respondent Claimant No.2 Resp^ndents Defendants No. 2 to 7 The Oriental Insurance Coinpany Ltd., Ambikapur, Surguja, through, DJvisional Manager, Divisionai Office, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Shri ShyamlaJ Kanwar, 32 years, S/o Shri Devarsai, Caste-Kanwar, Occupation-Agriculture. 2. Smt. Anita, 30 years, W/o Shri Shyamfa) Kanwar, Caste-kanwar, occupation-Housewlfe. Both R/o Viilage-Sarbhoka, P.S. Patna, Tahsil-Baikunthpur, District-Koria (CG) 3. Shri Ghoorsai, 40 years, S/o Shri Mevalai, Caste-Ghasia, OccupatJon-Tractor Driver. 4. Shri Ghoorsai Painkra, 38 years, S/o Shri Ramsai Painkra, Occupation-Tractor Owner. Respondents No. 3 & 4 are R/o Village- Kasra, P.S. Patna, Tahsil-Baikunthpur, District-Koria (CG) 5. Shri Rambhajan, 6 years, S/o Jagmohan, Occupation-Agriculture. 6. Shri Lagansai, 55 years, S/o Shri Pawansai, Occupation- AgricuJture. 7. Shri Jagsai, 36 years, S/o Shri Sajjan Sai, Occupation-Agriculture. Present: Shri SLankalp Jayasawai, iearned counsel for the appeitanVlnsurance Company. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20tt1 March, 2007) The foilowing oral order was passed by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. 1. in ciaim case No. 26/2003, the Additional Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea has vide award dated 30.11.2004 awarded a meagre compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/- for the death of Jitendra, the son of the applicants who was a student of class-X. The appea! was filed after 120 days after the date of award. This appeal is barred by limitation. 2. Heard on M.C.P. No. 211/2006 for condonation of delay of in fiiing this appeal. days 3. This appea! was preferred by the Oriental Insurance Cornpany Ltd., against the award dated 30.11.2004. Copy of the impugned award was applied for on 22.12.2004 and was received on 29.12.2004. Neither in theappiication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor in the affidavit filed by the Divisionai IVIanager of the appeliant/lnsurance Company, has it been shown as to how the fiies moved in the Oriental Insurance Cornpany and when the proposai was sent and when the sanction was obtained for filing the appeai. 4. It is not the law that in every case where there is delay in fi!ing of appeal by the Insurance Company, it should be condoned automaticaSIy without considering whether there is sufficient cause for the deiay. The insurance Company like any other litigant is under an obiigation to show sufficient cause for the deiay. The appeiiant/Insurance Company is equipped with a legal Department. !t was for the appellant to show why there was delay in appiying for the copy of the award, when did the Company send a proposal for obtaining official sanction, when it was received and when the appeai was filed. To reiterate the mere fact that the appeilant is the Insurance Company and procedura! deiay is the rule jn such Companies, wouid not by itself constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of deiay in every case. Since no material is piaced on record to show why the delay occurred in filing this appeai, ! am not inclined to condone the de!ay in filing this appeai. It is oniy when the appeliant/insurance Company puts forth the detaiis of the movements of the files that certain amount of latitude could be granted in favour of the insurance Company. !t is also pertinent to note that the affidavit of the concerned Divisional Manager is wholly siient on this point. Even the appiication for condonation of delay does not mention the actual delay that has occurred and a blank space has been left. 3£> 5. ln this view of the matter, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is dismissed. 6. Consequently, the misceilaneous appeal is a!so dlsmissed as barred by Limitation. In view of of stay also stands disposed of. barred by Limitation. In view of the above, M.C.P. No. 210/2006 for grant Priya Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge <y ?