1 C.A. No. 5909 of 2008 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATRE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5909 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5910 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 27694 OF 2008 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Applicant Versus Suleman Umar Mohd. Umar Shaikh and anr. ... Respondents Mr. Ranjan Tripathi holding for Mr. S.M. Vidyarthi for applicant. Mr. A.M. Gokhale holding for Mr. M.B. Kotak for respondent no. 1. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : APRIL 28, 2011 P.C. 1. This Civil Application is for condonation of delay of 2 years and 56 days in preferring the appeal by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award granting compensation to respondent no. 1. The impugned judgment and award was dated 9th June, 2006. The certified copy of the same was received by the applicant on 25th July, 2006. Thereafter the present application came to be filed on 25th November, 2008. 2. In the application it is claimed that after receiving the certified 2 C.A. No. 5909 of 2008 copy, the concerned office of the applicant took lot of efforts to trace out the insurance details of the vehicle involved in the accident. This consumed some time. The particulars of the enquiries are not stated in the application. It is claimed that the matter was entrusted with the advocate on the panel maintained by the applicant. As the advocate raised certain queries, which did not find favour with the applicant. Then "after lot of detailed study of the matter" it was decided to give the matter to another advocate. Once again particulars of the claim are not stated. It is next claimed that the documents relating to the proceedings were lost. Once the documents were traced, time was taken for preparation of the cheque for statutory deposit under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For none of the facts set out in the application, any details are furnished. Therefore, the claim made is rendered vague and hence cannot be believed. Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to file additional affidavit to set up the details of the grounds taken in the application. Even if the details are allowed to be brought on record, ground no. 2 set out in the application for change of advocate cannot be said to be a satisfactory ground for condonation of delay. Hence, Civil application is dismissed. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the applicant in this court by way of statutory deposit, be transferred 3 C.A. No. 5909 of 2008 to the Tribunal for crediting it towards the decretal amount. 3. In view of the disposal of this application, nothing further survives in Civil Application No. 5910 of 2008 which is also disposed off accordingly. [Judge]