- (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 by the Insurance Company against the award dated 13.03.2014 after expiry of limitation with a delay of 1 year and 260 days. The explanation furnished in affidavit accompanying delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") is very vague of official consultation etc.. In the entire explanation contained in paras 3 to 11, reads as under: "3. That it further appears that by the Judgment and order/Award dated 13.03.2014, the aforesaid Motor Accident Claim Petition No.328 of 2013 filed by the Claimants/Respondents was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional district Judge, Court No.11, Aligarh. 4. That the learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant (Insurance Company) before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal sent copy of the Judgment and Order and other relevant papers to the Lucknow Office of the Opposite party/Appellant (Insurance Company), which were received by the Lucknow Office in the end of the month of July, 2015. 5. That the concerned officers at the Lucknow Office examined the matter with a view to decide future course of action. As certain clarifications were required from the learned counsel for the opposite party/Appellant before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, the same were sought from the said learned counsel. The said learned counsel provided such clarifications in the middle of the month of November, 2015 and certain further clarifications in the end of the month of January, 2016. 6. That after examining the matter om the light of various clarifications obtained from the said learned counsel, the Lucknow Office sent the matter along with papers for sanction for filing appeal to the Chennai Head Office of the Opposite Party/Appellant in the beginning of the month of February, 2016. 7. That the matter was examined by the concerned officers at the Chennai Head Office. 8. That the Chennai Head Office gave its sanction on or about February 22, 2016 for filing the appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the said judgment and order. 9. That after receiving the approval from the Chennai Head Office, necessary processing and preparation was done at the Lucknow Office, and thereafter, the Deponent contacted Sri. Pranjal Mehrotra, Advocate on February 4, 2016 for the purpose of filing appeal against the said Judgment and order. 10. That the appeal was prepared and typed on February 25, 2016 and February 26, 2016, and the same is being filing without any avoidable delay. 11. That the delay, if any, in filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the said Judgment and Order/Award occurred on account of the circumstances stated hereinbefore, and the same was bonafide and genuine."
(3.) The explanation is very sketchy, perfunctory, shallow and wholly unsatisfactory. 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.;