THE HIGH COURT OF SIl(KIM : GANGTOK DATED : 18-11-2011 CORAM HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE S. P. WANGDI MAC App. No.04 of 2011 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd,, Gangtok, Sikkim. I.. Appellant versus Shri Subhas Chandra Paul, S/o Late Kamalakanta Paul, R/o 322/A, Chittaranjan Avenue, P.S. Jorasanko, Girish Park, Kolkata - 700 005, West Bengal. Shri Pintso Lepcha, S/o Shri Lak Tshering Lepcha, Driver of Taxi No.SK-04/1812, R/o Hingdem, South Sikkim. Shri Rigzing Khenkhap Bhutia, S/o Shri Y, D. Bhutia, Owner of TATA Spacio Taxi Bearing Registration No.SK-04/1812, R/o Kewzing, P.S. Ravangla, South Sikkim For Appellant For Respondent No.1 ... Respondents Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Advocate. Ms. Jyoti Kharka, Advocate proxy for Mr. Bhupendra Giri and Mr. Kumar Sharma, Advocates. ForRespondentNo.2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar Chettri, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : None appears. C,., QBDEB Wan ACJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on question of condonation of delay. It is an admitted position that there is a delay of 169 days in filing the appeal. The grounds set out for the delay being condoned have been stated in paragraph 3 of the application for condonation of delay, which may be reproduced below:- "3. That the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., being a Govt. of India Undertaking, the entire records had been sent by the Petitioner to its Divisional Office at Siliguri after obtaining the certified copies of the udgement for necessary instruction who in turn sent he same to its Regional Office at Kolkata. The Regional Office of the Petitioner in turn sent the entire file to its standing counsel for his expert opinion hence there was a delay of 169 days in filing the instant appeal." It has been noticed that almost every appeal q7 filed on behalf of the Insurance Companies is invariably delayed. The grounds seeking for the delay being , condoned are always found to be stereo typed as the ones set out in the present case. This clearly reflects the casualness with which the Insurance Companies file appeals and, the appeals itself appear to be filed as a matter of routine. The only object that could be achieved by doing so would be to deprive the victims of accidents from their legitimate compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. This is clearly in gross conflict with the object of the Act which is to provide for expeditious and speedy relief to the victims of the motor vehicle accidents. In Civil Appeal No. 8644 of 2011 arising out of SLP(C) No. 29916 of 2010 in the matter of Shri Subrata Mitra vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar situation, was pleased to note the finding of this Court in MACApp No.06 of 2009 where this Court had given the following finding:- "In so far as the question as to whether or not the averments extracted herebefore contained in the application for condonation of delay would constitute "sufficient cause" that prevented the appellant from preferring the appeal in time is another the matter. One of the grounds raised for the delay being condoned as set out in paragraph 3 is"due to communication gap" between the Ld. Advocate of the appellant and the officials of the appellant which resulted in the certified copy of the judgment and award being made available only in the last week of May, 2009. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Joshi, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.1, the pleadings are quite vague and devoid of material particulars. No effort has been made to state as to how the communication gap occurred between the Advocate of the appellant and the officials of the appellant. Being the principle contesting respondent in the case before the Tribunal, it is expected that the appellant would be diligent in following up with the case by keeping regular contact with his counsel. The responsibility lies primarily with the party in following up his case and not be solely be dependent upon his counsel. Curiously enough, even the counsel conducting the case has not come forward with any affidavit to support that there was indeed a communication gap. Apart from this, the appellant 4 a has concealed the fact that the application for the certified copy of the award of the leamed Tribunal was filed only after 42 days of the award which is evident from the entry made by the Head Copyist in the certified copy supplied to the appellant that has been filed with the memo of appeal. 17. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application for condonation of delay, it has not been specified as to when the impugned ].udgment had been forwarded to the Divisional Manager of the appellant. It has also not been specified as to when the Divisional Manager referred to the Regional Manager for his consideration and the details of the stages followed by the Regional Manager for seeking legal opinion and as to the advice that 'was said to have been given to the Branch Manager, Gangtok Branch, through the Divisional Manager stationed at Silliguri, West Bengal t:o prefer an appeal. Apart from the vague statements no material particulars have been furnished in the application with regard to the movement of the file let alone the filing of any records of the appellant showing such deliberations. Keeping in view, the principles of law laid down in the cases (supra) referred to by Mr. Joshi, I have no hesitation in holding that, apart from the averments set out as grounds for condoning the delay that are quite vague, the appellant has been grossly negligent in taking steps in the matter. No bona fide can be attached to the appellant in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case. Suppression of material fact of the application for certified copies being filed in a lackadaisical manner makes the case all the more worse for the appellant. I, therefore, hold that the appellant failed to show that he was prevented by "sufficient cause" in preferring the appeal in time," 5. The facts in the case where the above findings were arrived at being identical as in the present case, I have no hesitation in holding the same view as regards the grounds given in paragraph 3 of the application for condonation of delay extracted above which are no less nebulous, vague and bereft of any material facts and, therefore, cannot be considered as ``sufficient cause" for this Court to condone the delay. From the order of this Court extracted above, the appellant is also found to have concealed the fact that the application for the certified copy of the award of the learned Tribunal was filed only after 42 days of the award, a fact which was held against the appellant. In the present case, the situation is worse as the application for certified copy of the impugned order was made 142 days after it was passed as we din that the date of the impugned award is 07-10-2010, while the date of application for the certified copy is 26-02-2011 as evident from t:he entry in the relevant column by the Head Copyist of the tribunal. Considering the nature of the case involved in the present appeal and the indifferent and causal approach of the appellant in preferring it, it would be unjust to keep the matter pending and, therefore, reject the application for condonation of delay. 8. The appeal stands dismissed for the aforesaid reason with a cost of Rs,10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) to be paid to the Bar Association at Namchi, South Sikkim. It is directed that the appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the compensation awarded by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South and West Districts, Sikkim at Namchi within a period of 15 days failing which it shall entail payment of additional interest of 2°/o. Needless to state that the amount which has been paid to the respondent-claimant in terms of the Order dated 08-09-2011 passed by this Court shall be deducted. v..` Index : Y>s/No Internet : Yes/No jks/ds