Honble PATIL, CJ.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals. These appeals are directed against the order dated January, 20, 1999 made by the learned Single Judge, under which orders the learned Single Judge in his discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances did not codone the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals; applications filed by the appellant under Section 5, Limitation Act were dismissed. Consequently, the appeals were also dismissed. (2). The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company in these appeals contended that having regard to the contentions raised in the appeals and particularly looking to the glaring error committed by the Tribunal, namely, that there was serious dispute as to who actually was driving the tractor whether Vela Ram or Dayaram; having regard to the conflict found in the evidence the Tribunal ought to have accepted the case of the appellant. The learned Single Judge also did not accept this contention of the Insurance Company on the ground that the judgment of conviction passed under Section 304A, I.P.C. was not relevant in the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in view of Sections 41, 42 and 43 of the Evidence act; if only this contention of the Insurance Company was properly appreciated and accepted the result would have been different. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the appeals deserve to be admitted looking to the merits, apart from the fact that the appellant Insurance Company had shown sufficient and good reasons for condonation of delay in the application made under Section 5, Limitation Act. (3). We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Single Judge in these orders under appeals having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, found that the reason shown for the delay was neither convincing nor satisfactory and refused to condone the delay exercising his discretion and rejected the application filed under Section 5, Limitation Act and consequently, the appeals also were dismissed. (4). We are not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals in view of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal based on the evidence as to whom as driving the tractor actually. (4). We are not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals in view of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal based on the evidence as to whom as driving the tractor actually. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the order passed convicting the driver under Section 304A, I.P.C. was not relevant to be admitted before the M.A.C.T. Thus in view of the finding of fact recorded it is not possible for us to take a different view as the finding was based on appreciation of evidence. Since the learned Judge in his discretion has refused to condone the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals, we cannot say that the discretion exercised was not proper or cannot be sustained. In this view, we find no good ground to admit these appeals. (5). Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission.