IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- C.M. No. 255/C.II of 2008 F.A.O. No. 29 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.2.2008 M/s. Amritsar Bottling Co. --- Appellant Versus Gurmit Kaur and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Civil Misc. No. 255/C.II of 2008 The instant appeal has been filed after expiry of the period of limitation. The prayer clause indicates that there is a delay of 1786 days, i.e. more than four years and nine months, in filing the present appeal. It is averred in the application that the claimants in the claim petition filed on 17.5.1999 under the Motor Vehicles Act had sued the applicant-Company through its Managing Director, Surinder Bir Singh Kandhari. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on 23.8.2002 and meanwhile the Managing Director had been changed. Gurdip Singh Kandhari, the new Managing Director of the appellant- Company, on taking the charge came to know that the impugned award had been passed against the appellant. The new Managing Director after making further enquiry and obtaining certified copy of the award F.A.O. No. 29 of 2008 engaged a counsel and filed the appeal without any further delay. In the above context, it was said that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The counsel made submissions in terms of the averments made in the application. I do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. To point out the first and the foremost fact is that there is a titanic and unprecedented delay of about five years in filing the appeal. All that is said for occurrence of this colossal delay is that it had been caused due to change of the Managing Director of the appellant- Company. The factum of change of the Managing Director, even if it may be true, has nothing to do in the matter of filing of the appeal for the simple reason that whosoever is the authority in the appellant- Company, competent to take such a decision could very well go ahead and prefer an appeal. Except the sole reason i.e. the change of the Managing Director, nothing more is stated in the application to explain the delay in filing the appeal. The application is completely vague inasmuch as there is no mention as to when the previous Managing Director of the Company was changed and as to on what date the new incumbent joined. The only one reason, indicated above, does not constitute a cause much less a sufficient cause by which the appellant-Company might have been prevented from filing the appeal in time. The ground 2 F.A.O. No. 29 of 2008 so stated in the application cannot be said to be a “sufficient cause” because the appellant-applicant could have avoided the delay if it had exercised due care and caution. Still further, a perusal of the impugned award dated 23.8.2002 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal shows that the appellant-Company had engaged a counsel and had been defending the proceedings in the claim petition before the Tribunal. The net conclusion that would emerge from the above is that the appellant-applicant has failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the un-explained delay of 1786 days in filing the instant appeal. Civil Misc. application is therefore, dismissed. F.A.O. No. 29 of 2008 In view of dismissal of application for condonation of delay, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) February 07, 2008 JUDGE *MALIK* 3