JUDGMENT:- This appeal is being taken up for hearing in order to ascertain and examine if the appeal has merit, else it would mean vexing the respondents on the hearing of condonation of delay where appeal itself may be merit less. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. R. Godbole for the appellant and perused the impugned Judgment and award. 3. The crux of the case is breach of conditions of policy. What is seen from the Judgment in this regard is as follows: "11. Though as per pleadings of the respondent no.3 there was breach of the policy but absolutely there is no iota of evidence on behalf of the respondent no.3. Hence, I do not agree with the respondent no.3 on this count." [Quoted from para 11 of page 4 of the impugned Judgment]. 4. The question as to whether there was a pillion rider with a valid license is seen to be the pivotal question of fact around which the factual aspect as to whether there was breach of policy shall roate. 5. The fact of absence of pillion rider with valid driving licence was liable to be proved by the respondent, as it was so specifically asserted by Insurer. 6. It is seen that the insurer was content and satisfied with denial in the pleadings and did not bring any ocular witness to support the deficiency which was positively pleaded. 7. The Trial Court was, therefore, option less and hence, right in reaching the conclusion that the defence of breach of policy is not proved, and rather that there is no "iota" of evidence in support of the plea. 8. This Court has then tried to find out as to how the categorical finding of the Trial Court that there is absolutely no evidence about the breach of policy is challenged in the appeal, has been met or challenged and as to what is the foundation of this challenge. 9. It is not shown as to how the finding recorded by the Trial Court is shown to be contrary on record. 10. Bare filing of appeal with long described and narrated grounds do not by them self lend strong support to sustain a challenge. 11. In these premises, no ground is shown and seen on which the appellant has an arguable case. 10. Bare filing of appeal with long described and narrated grounds do not by them self lend strong support to sustain a challenge. 11. In these premises, no ground is shown and seen on which the appellant has an arguable case. It would, therefore, be an empty formality to admit the appeal and drive the parties for final hearing, and vex tern. 12. It is apparent that the action is arising out of age old law of Tort reformulated legislatively, and the principle of compulsory insurance as a social security measure and a policy legislation. 13. It is clear that the insurer is aggrieved and has exerted to prefer appeal and paid Court fee, is no ground to entertain an appeal in the premises discussed herein before. 14. It is thus, seen that the appeal has no merit, and it deserves to be dismissed without calling for records and without notice to the respondents. 15. In these premises, hearing of the application for condonation of delay is going to be an exercise in futility, but at the cost of and on vexing the claimant and other respondents. 16. The application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is, therefore, dismissed. As the appeal would not be registered, appellant would get the refund of Court fee according to law. Ordered accordingly.