MC 3129/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI This is an application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay for a period of 315 days in preferring appeal against judg ment and Order, dated 03.10.2008, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident C laims Tribunal, Morigaon, in MAC Case No. 53/2007. Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, an d Mr. FKR Ahmed, learned counsel for claimant-respondent No. 1-opposite party. The explanation, which the applicant has offered for the delay in prefer ring the appeal, is, in substance, that the applicant company came to know about the award after almost six months of the passing of the award inasmuch as the s ame was received by the Nagaon branch of the applicant company, on 26.03.2009, a nd, on receiving the information by the Nagaon branch of the applicant company, the said branch of the applicant company sent the matter to the Regional Office of the applicant company, at Guwahati, for final decision and, on 09.04.2009, th e Regional office of the applicant company took the decision to take legal opini on from their advocate, but, due to Bihu vacation from 11.04.2009 to 19.04.2009, the file could not be handed over to their advocate and, finally, the concerned file was handed over to their advocate on 20.04.2009 and, on 29.04.2009, the ad vocate gave his opinion suggesting to take copy of the evidences adduced by the claimants-opposite party and that it was only after obtaining the copy of the ev idences, on 07.07.2009, as suggested by their advocate, the appeal was filed by the applicant company on 12.11.2009. Resisting the above application, seeking condonation of delay, responden t No. 1-opposite party (i.e., the claimant) has filed objection and what transpi res from his objection is that a copy of the impugned award had been sent to the Regional Office of the applicant company, by the office of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, as far as back as on 11.11.2008, which was duly received by the Regional Manager of the applicant company on 24.11.201 0. The objection, so raised by the respondent No. 1-opposite party, could not be di sputed by the applicant. The objection, filed by the respondent No. 1-opposite party, thus, reveals another facet of the matter and the facet is that the prese nt application, seeking condonation of delay, suffers from suppression of materi al fact and manipulation of the explanation offered. This apart, the Nagaon bra nch of the applicant company is a part of the applicant company and any laches, on the part of the Nagaon branch of the applicant company, cannot be considered de-hors from, or independent of, the laches of the applicant company’s Regional office. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not f ind that the applicant has been able to make out any case for condoning the dela y of as many as 315 days in preferring the appeal against the impugned award. T his application is, therefore, not allowed and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. This Misc. Case stands disposed of accordingly.