( 1 ) THE 1st respondent herein, who is no more, filed O. P. No. 609 of 1992 claiming compensation of an amount of Rs. 30,000/- under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles act against the owner of the vehicle bearing no. AP. 11 T 1841 and also the insurer i. e. , united India Insurance Company Ltd. (i. e. , the petitioner herein) stating that she boarded the tempo bearing No. AP 11 T1841 and on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle, the vehicle turtled, on account of which the 1st respondent sustained fractures on her left hand and also received multiple injuries all over her body. ( 2 ) THOUGH the owner of the vehicle (1st respondent in the O. P.) remained ex parte in the Tribunal below, the insurance company i. e. , the petitioner herein (2nd respondent in the O. P.) contested the matter by filing a counter. Its further contention was that the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and the vehicle was not roadworthy. On the basis of the said petition and counter, the tribunal below framed necessary issues and conducted enquiry. After examining witnesses i. e. , P. Ws. 1 and 2 and getting marked Exs. A-1 to A-9 on behalf of the claimant, the tribunal below has given a categorical finding that the 1st respondent herein sustained injuries solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle (1st respondent in the o. P.) and as such the claimant is entitled for compensation and accordingly fixed the liability jointly and severally on both the respondents i. e. , the owner of the vehicle, who remained ex parte, and the insurance company i. e. , the petitioner herein and awarded compensation of Rs. 28,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. ( 3 ) AS against the said order of the Tribunal, the insurance company i. e. , the petitioner herein, filed the above C. M. A. but in that process, there occurred a delay of about 287 days in filing the appeal. ( 3 ) AS against the said order of the Tribunal, the insurance company i. e. , the petitioner herein, filed the above C. M. A. but in that process, there occurred a delay of about 287 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the present petition i. e. , C. M. P. No. 20136 of 1999 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay. ( 4 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, one Mr. G. Rajeswara Rao, the assistant Divisional Manager of the United india Insurance Company Ltd. , has sworn in and stated that award was passed in the O. P. on 9-12-1997 and a copy application was made on 5-10-1998 and copies were received on 15-10-1998. On receipt of the said certified copies, their panel advocate forwarded the said copies to their Divisional Office for taking further action. The Divisional Office in its turn has searched for the policy and subsequently it came to light at the Branch office at Malakpet that it never issued any such policy in respect of the vehicle in question. On coming to know of the said fact, the Divisional Office had obtained the legal opinion and sanction from the competent authority and filed the above appeal in this court. In the said process, there is delay of 287 days. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the 1st respondent- claimant has strenuously contended that it is entirely a new plea which is put forward by the petitioner herein for the first time in this appeal and the said new plea cannot be taken into consideration at all at this juncture. It is further contended that nothing prevented the insurance company from taking such a plea in the court below itself. Thus, he opposed the petition to condone the delay as well as the appeal preferred by the insurance company. ( 6 ) FROM a narration of the events and also on a perusal of the entire record placed beforp this court, it is clear that it was not the contention of the insurance company in the o. P. which was contested by it that the crime vehicle was not insured with the petitioner- insurance company and as such it is not entitled to pay the compensation. In view of the said factual aspect, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimant that it is altogether new plea which is taken for the first time in this appeal. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay also makes it amply clear that the Divisional Office after receipt of the certified copies, during the course of the search has come to know of the fact that the crime vehicle was not insured. The insurance company ought to have been diligent enough in contesting the matter and had it verified the position during the pendency of the O. P. and contested the matter in the court below itself to the effect that the crime vehicle is not insured with them, the position would have been altogether different. Now, at this stage, a new plea cannot be entertained. As per the affidavit, it is only on coming to know that the vehicle is not insured with the insurance company, they thought it fit to file an appeal which cannot be accepted at this juncture in view of the fact that the court below has not gone into that aspect at all. I, therefore, see no reason to condone the delay. ( 7 ) THE petition is accordingly dismissed.