ORDER PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.09 passed by the Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint no 6/05, the opposite party, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein and has directed the appellant insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 15,00,979.97 to the complainant together with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the complaint till payment, besides sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. The appeal has been filed after delay of 146 days and an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. But, it does not set out any ground or detailed reason(s) which has resulted into this undue delay except making a bald and vague statement that “the Applicant Insurance Company is a public sector undertaking and has various procedures to comply with. Such compliance procedures require approval from senior officers of such organization and such approval may take longer time than usual.” We are of the view that such a bald statement does not form any ground what to talk a good or sufficient ground for seeking condonation of undue delay of 146 days. The law is well settled in this regard. An applicant who approaches a Court or Forum with such a request, must explain each day’s delay in filing the proceeding. The mere fact that the applicant happens to be a Public Sector Undertaking and that the matter was required to be considered by its senior officers/authorities by itself is not a good ground for condonation of delay unless of course in some given case it is explained that despite what was the possible within their means was done and despite that the delay has occurred. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay in the present case. 3. Even then, we have considered the appeal on its merits. The complaint before the State Commission related to the non-settlement of an insurance claim for the loss which the complainant had suffered to its insured stock of raw material etc. lying at the factory, which was gutted/damaged in an early morning fire on 11.04.05 within the currency period of the insurance policy. The complaint before the State Commission related to the non-settlement of an insurance claim for the loss which the complainant had suffered to its insured stock of raw material etc. lying at the factory, which was gutted/damaged in an early morning fire on 11.04.05 within the currency period of the insurance policy. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that considering the circumstances in which the fire was stated to have taken place, no efforts were made by the complainant to immediately inform the Fire Brigade to minimize the loss and there was considerable delay in doing so. The Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, however, assessed the claim at Rs. 13,97,887.78 (including excise duty) and at Rs. 1,03,092.19. The State Commission, going by the respective pleas and contentions and the material placed on record, has, however, rejected the contentions of the insurance company and has given valid reasons for the same. The State Commission has allowed the complaint and awarded the compensation strictly in terms of the assessment made by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company itself. The award of interest @ 7% p.a. on the awarded amount is also just and reasonable. We do no see any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission which is based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material produced on record. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine on both counts of limitation as well as on merits.