Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The present applications are filed by the National Insurance Co.Ltd. seeking condonation of delay of 101 days caused in filing the aforesaid First Appeals against the judgment and award dated 29.06.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Ahmedabad (R) at Mirzapur in M.A.C.P. No. 1278 of 1998, which was decided along with M.A.C.P. Nos. 1669 of 2000 and 1670 of 2000. 2. On the last occasion (06.08.2010), Learned Advocate for the applicant-appellant -insurance company was granted time to file additional affidavit. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant files additional affidavits of one Shri Hitendra C. Desai, Administrative Officer of the applicant company. 4. As set out in the Civil Application, the Tribunal was pleased to pass the award on 29.06.2009. The Learned Advocate for the applicant company before the Tribunal applied for certified copy on 01.07.2009 and the same was delivered to the Learned Advocate on 07.09.2009. 4.1. On inquiry, Learned Advocate states that the certified copy was ready for delivery on 31.08.2009 and it was received by the Learned Advocate on 07.09.2009. The Learned Advocate after receiving the certified copy on 07.09.2009, submitted the papers to Divisional Office on 22.09.2009. The Divisional Office in turn sent the papers to the Regional Office on 30.09.2009. 4.2. So far as the period from 31.08.2009 up to 30.09.2009 is concerned, the Learned Advocate did not receive the certified copy for 7 days from 31.08.2009 to 07.09.2009. Thereafter, he took 15 days in forwarding the papers to the Divisional Office as the papers were sent to the Divisional Office on 22.09.2009. Thereafter, the Divisional Office took 8 days in forwarding the papers to the Regional Office as the papers were sent to the Regional Office on 30.09.2009. 5. The Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that it so happened that the officer, who was looking after the motor accident claim cases at the Regional Office came to be promoted as Divisional Manager at Junagadh on 1st October 2009. 2nd, 3rd and 4th of October were holidays and on 6th October 2009, new incumbent took charge at the Regional Office, who was expected to deal with the files pertaining to the motor accident claim cases. 2nd, 3rd and 4th of October were holidays and on 6th October 2009, new incumbent took charge at the Regional Office, who was expected to deal with the files pertaining to the motor accident claim cases. This new incumbent proceeded on leave on 1st November 2009 up to 30th November 2009 and it is only after he resumed at the Regional Office after 30th November 2009, that he started taking up the files pertaining to motor accident claim cases for consideration. 5.1. So far as the period from 6th October 2009 to 1st November 2009 is concerned, no explanation is rendered as to why the new incumbent did not proceed further in the direction of filing of the First Appeal. 6. The Learned Advocate submitted that even after the new incumbent resumed at the Regional Office from his leave period (1st November 2009 to 30th November 2009), this file could not be attended by the said incumbent because the file was tagged with some other files wherein the appeal was already filed. Thereafter, on an inquiry in the subject matter by the Divisional Office, as to whether in this matter the appeal is filed or not, the file was searched and after searching out the file they processed the matter further for filing the First Appeal. 6.1. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that in this entire sequence of events the delay took place and the First Appeal could be filed only after that delay of 101 days. Learned Advocate for the applicant requests that the delay be condoned, may be by awarding some reasonable cost to the other side. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the explanation which is tendered by the Learned Advocate for the applicant cannot be said to be a satisfactory explanation for the reason that by condonation of this delay the claimants will be driven to contest the First Appeal at the High Court though the accident has taken place before more than a decade (accident took place on 16.06.1998). This Court is of the opinion that the delay which is sought to be explained is unexplainable for the reason; from 6th October 2009 to 1st November 2009 until the new incumbent proceeded on leave there is no explanation coming as to why could he not attend this file. This Court is of the opinion that the delay which is sought to be explained is unexplainable for the reason; from 6th October 2009 to 1st November 2009 until the new incumbent proceeded on leave there is no explanation coming as to why could he not attend this file. Besides, there is negligence on the part of the staff of the insurance company in getting this file tagged with the files in which the appeal was already filed and on account of both these eventualities, the First Appeal could not be filed which deprived the claimants of their legitimate claim from being received. 8. This prayer for condonation of delay is also required to be looked into in light of another important fact that, ‘the insurance company soon after the passing of award did not warrant itself to deposit the amount’. In the present case also the Learned Advocate does not have any specific instructions to state as to whether the amount is deposited or not. This amounts to granting stay to itself by the insurance company, which is highly deprecatory and the same is accordingly deprecated. It is only when a person is made to experience the difficulty of losing a dear and near one and then losing the economic support from that dear and near one, and more particularly, when that agony is lingered for a decade and even after the award is passed, waiting for the insurance company to file an appeal and then to obtain an order of disbursement after appearing in the said First Appeal, is something which restrains this Court from condoning the delay on the basis of the aforesaid explanation. This Court is of the opinion that insurance company is a corporate body having all resources at its command and therefore, instead of preferring an application for condonation of delay, they should manage their affairs in a manner that it causes no delay and if not filed, at least partial relief is available to the claimants soon after the award is passed in a matter. 9. This Court is also of the opinion that delay caused in filing First Appeal by insurance company cannot be treated at par with filing of proceedings by any other public body or Govt. 9. This Court is also of the opinion that delay caused in filing First Appeal by insurance company cannot be treated at par with filing of proceedings by any other public body or Govt. department, because this Court is definitely of the opinion that claimants are not so placed that they can go to the staff of the insurance company and see to it that as an ultimate result a first appeal is not filed and if it is filed, it is filed with delay so that it gets dismissed. It is true that the insurance company also works through human agency and that human agency may not have the same vigilance as is available in the personal matters but the affairs of insurance company are managed by as a corporate body and corporate body does exercise sufficient control over its staff to conduct them up in a manner so that no delay is caused in filing appeals before the High Court. 10. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that there are judgments of the Hon’ble the Apex Court to the effect that the matter should not be dismissed on the ground of delay, which may result into foreclosure of a meritorious matter. 10.1 This Court is unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that, in the opinion of this Court, receiving of compensation by the victims of an accident which took place on 16.06.1998 is more meritorious than the case of the insurance company. 11. With these observations, this Court is unable to accept the explanation tendered by way of an additional affidavit as satisfactory explanation so as to enable the insurance company to get the delay condoned. Hence, the applications are dismissed.