IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 223 of 2011 Date of decision : 14.7.2011. National Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant. Versus Kanta Devi and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. I.N.Mehta, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) CMP(M) No. 764 of 2011. 1. This is an application for condonation of 243 days delay in filing the appeal. The explanation given in the appeal reads as follows:- “2. That the award was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 21.7.2010. The application for obtaining the copy of the award was applied on 21.7.2010. The copy was prepared on 31.7.2010 and was obtained on 25.8.2010. Thereafter, the copy of the award was received in the Branch office of the appellant in the first week of September, 2010. The file of the case alongwith copy of the award was sent to the office of the Regional Manager at Chandigarh and was received there in the second week of November, 2010. The regional office obtained the opinion of the panel lawyer for taking further action in the matter. The file alongwith the opinion was received in the office of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 Divisional Manager, Shimla in the 3rd week of June, 2011. Thereafter, the appeal was drafted by the counsel and after preparing all the documents etc. the appeal is being filed immediately without any further delay. 3. That the appeal in the meantime has become barred by 243 days. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but for the reasons that the file had to be routed through different channels of the appellant company. In case the delay is condoned no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents.” 2. A perusal of the aforesaid averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs shows that no explanation worth the name has been given to condone the delay. Only a set of dates has been given and thrown at the Court to draw its own inference. There is no explanation as to why the file remained in the branch office from 1st week of September, 2010 till the 2nd week of November, 2010. Next averment is that the regional office obtained the opinion of the panel lawyer. On which date the matter was referred to the panel lawyer is not stated. When the opinion of the penal lawyer was given has not been stated and all that is stated is that the file alongwith the opinion was received in the office of the Divisional Manager, Shimla in the 3rd week of June, 2011 and the appeal was immediately thereafter drafted. 3. We are dealing with an Insurance Company, which is regularly filing appeals. It has a legal department and they are expected to be aware that the limitation for filing an appeal in the High Court is 90 days. If they still continue to sit over the 3 matter and take no steps for filing an appeal within time and show no urgency in the matter there is no ground for condoning the delay. Therefore, the application for condoning the delay is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is also dismissed. No order as to costs. 14th July, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.