HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ;Sinqle Bench : Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Misc. Appeal No. 572 of 2003 United lndia insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, 68, Indira Commercial Complex, Transport Nagar, Korba (C.G.) versus Shivshankar S/o Vishwanath 'Tiwari, aged 38 years, R/o K.P.T.O. Dipika, Tah. Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) Non-appiicant No.1 2. Jasvinder Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Sikkha, aged 58 years, R/o B/111, Pragti Nagar, Dipika, Tah. Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) Non-applicant No.2 3. Shyamsunder, S/o Tiiok Ram, aged 30 years, R/o. Village Chicholi, Thana Nandghat, Tah. Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) ‘ Applicant Misc. Appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 l i resent : Appellant by Shri Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, learned counsel Respondents No. 1 & 3 are absent. Respondent No.2 by Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel ‘ Heard on M.C.P.No.1041/2003 for condonation of delay of 79 days in filing this appeal. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12m of February, 2008) The appellant has mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that due to closing year all the officers were very busy, and therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time. ln the meantime, the limitation expired. It hasélSo been mentioned that after recovering fro 2. m the closing year, the appellant — insurance company started sorting out the papers in the office and the relevant file was discovered at some oint of time, when, it is not mentioned. lt is further stated that after taking advice from the counsel, the appeal was prepared and filed. / p 3. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that a liberal view should be taken while considering the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. Shri Sudeep Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2 opposes the application. 5. i have heard rival submissions. lt is well settled that it is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the explanation which has to be considered while deciding an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act The appellant Is an Insurance company With a full-fledged office and legal network The ground taken by the company only shows the callous attitude of the company In taking steps for preferring appeal. The case of the appellant cannot be equated with that of an uneducated, poor or illiterate litigant. ‘After passing of the impugned award, the appellant — insurance Company went into a complete slumberétook no steps for filing the appeal within the period of limitation and awoke only after the expiry of limitation. It has also not taken steps to make the statutory deposit as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. In this View of the matter l am of the constdered opinion that suffICIent ground for condonation of delay in fillng this appeal has not been shown by the Insurance company. M.C.P.No.1041/2003 for condonation of delay is dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is alsodismissed as barred by limitation. t 7. ln view of the above, M.C.P.No.1042/2003 for grant of stay stands isposed of. Sd/— i Dlhp RaoSaheb Deshntukh 7 7N Judge d