- (1.) Heard learned counsel for applicant-appellant and perused the record.
(2.) This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed with a delay of one year and 303 days. The only explanation given in affidavit accompanying delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") is that appellant believe that Insurance Company will make payment and hence could not approach the Court. The explanation given in paras 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of affidavit, reads as under: "2. That, in aforesaid case the judgment and award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 23.01.2016. 3. That, since the claim petition was jointly allowed in favour of the claimant/ respondent No. 1 to 5 against the defendant/ appellant as well as against respondent No. 7 and the defendant/ appellant was in view that the insurance company will pay money to the claimant/ respondent No. 1 to 5 therefore he could not approached to this Hon'ble Court within time. 4. That, in the second week of January 2018 when the office concerned have informed the defendant/ appellant with regard to recovery proceeding against the defendant/ appellant thereafter the defendant / appellant has collected necessary papers and filing the present case before this Hon'ble Court. 5. That, the defendant/ appellant is poor villager having know knowledge of legal aspect therefore he could not approached to this Hon'ble Court within time hence if any delay has been caused that may be condoned in the interest of justice. 6. That, in individual circumstances some delay has been caused in filing the present case and the situation was beyond the control of the defendant/ appellant hence if any delay has been caused that may be condoned in the interest of justice."
(3.) The explanation is very vague and, in our view, there is no explanation what to say of satisfactory explanation as to why the matter was not taken with due earnest and reasonable expediency.;