JUDGMENT Wangdi, J. (Oral) This Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South and West Sikkim at Namchi dated 01.04.2013, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 04 of 2012, by which death compensation of Rs.20,84,500/-(Rupees twenty lakhs eighty four thousand five hundred) was awarded to the Respondents/Claimants No.1, 2 and 3 being the cumulative sum of different components, namely, loss of earning, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and pain and suffering. 2. In the Appeal, the primary ground assailing the impugned judgment is that the Claimants had failed to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver, the Respondent no.5. However, before the matter can be taken up on merits, the Appellant Insurance Company is faced with a serious impediment in getting the Appeal heard in view of the delay of 250 days in approaching this Court with the Appeal. 3. It would, therefore, be appropriate to take up first the application for condonation of delay filed along with the Appeal registered as C. M. Application No.55 of 2014 and consider as to whether the Appellant has made out sufficient cause for getting the delay condoned. 4. On a perusal of the application filed as 2nd proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, we find the averments that set out the grounds are as under:- “3. That the Court fees have been paid on 04.04.2013 certified copies of the judgment being available to the Appellant/Insurer on 04.04.2013, the limitation period for presenting the Memo of Appeal was on or before 04.07.2013. Certified copy of the court fee paid challan dated 04.04.2013 paid by the claimants is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-1. 4. That after receiving the certified copy of the judgment/the Branch Office, Siliguri of the Appellant Insurer examined the Judgment /Award of the Learned Tribunal and in a few days’ time forwarded a copy of the same to the Regional Office at Kolkata. 5. Thereafter, the Regional Office at Kolkata received the matter to the Head Office at Kolkata for their advice and accordingly, the Head Office directed the Regional Office at Kolkata to prefer an Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok, East Sikkim. 6. 5. Thereafter, the Regional Office at Kolkata received the matter to the Head Office at Kolkata for their advice and accordingly, the Head Office directed the Regional Office at Kolkata to prefer an Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok, East Sikkim. 6. The Regional Office in turn forwarded the Judgment/Award to the Branch Office at Gangtok for preferring an appeal and on receipt of the case papers, the Branch Office at Gangtok instructed their counsel at Gangtok to prepare an appeal in the matter. The said communication was received by the Counsel of the Appellant Insurer on 03.03.2014. A copy of the letter to the Counsel of the Appellant Insurer for preferring an Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court is annexed and marked as Annexure-2. 7. That while drafting the Memo of Appeal certain clarifications were sought for from the Counsel who conducted the case before the Learned tribunal and accordingly, the certified copies of entire documents related to MACT No.04 of 2012 (Smt. Rita Rai (Sherpa) & Others before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal South & West Sikkim at Namchi was applied. This process took some time and the Memo of Appeal along with the petition for Condonation of Delay being finally ready on 09.03.2014 is being filed today. …………………………………………………………..” 5. From the averments reproduced above, it is conceded that the judgment was pronounced on 01.04.2013, the application for certified copy thereof filed on 04.04.2013 and the certified copy was made ready also on 04.04.2013. It appears that the Appellant engaged the Counsel for filing the Appeal only on 03.03.2014, as would appear from paragraph 6 above. 6. The Appeal in the normal circumstances and as permissible under the law ought to have been filed by 04.07.2013, but admittedly it was filed on 12.03.2014. It is fairly conceded by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there has been a delay of atleast 250 days in approaching this Court. 7. 6. The Appeal in the normal circumstances and as permissible under the law ought to have been filed by 04.07.2013, but admittedly it was filed on 12.03.2014. It is fairly conceded by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there has been a delay of atleast 250 days in approaching this Court. 7. The grounds for condonation of the delay pleaded in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 extracted above, in my view, do not set out any material facts except vague averments to the effect that after receiving the copy of the judgment, the Branch Office of the Appellant at Siliguri examined the judgment/award and in a few days time forwarded a copy of the same to the Regional Office at Kolkata, which in turn referred the matter to the Head Office at Kolkata for advice. Then the Head Office directed the Regional Office at Kolkata to prefer an Appeal before this Court and the Regional Office accordingly forwarded the award to the Branch Office at Gangtok and, on receipt of the papers, the Branch Office at Gangtok instructed the counsel to prepare an Appeal, the communication regarding which was received by the learned Counsel only on 03.03.2014. 8. The averments vague as they are, reflect the indifference and the casualness with which the entire matter has been taken up by the Appellant Insurance Company. We have time and again been observing this also in earlier appeals filed by the Insurance Companies and appeals are filed in a routine manner irrespective of whether there is any merit at all or not. In the present case also, I find that there is no merit in the Appeal, and the Appellant appears to be indulging in frivolity defeating the very object of the statute for which it was passed. The application, in my view, certainly does not satisfy the requirements of the proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. The application for condonation of delay, therefore, stands dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed as being barred by limitation. 10. In the facts and circumstances, the Appellant shall pay cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only to the Respondents/Claimants. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. 9. The application for condonation of delay, therefore, stands dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed as being barred by limitation. 10. In the facts and circumstances, the Appellant shall pay cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only to the Respondents/Claimants. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to ensure that the compensation awarded by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South and West at Namchi is satisfied in terms of the impugned judgment within 30 days from this date. 13. Compliance report shall be filed by the Appellant Insurance Company on or before 05.06.2014. 14. A copy of this judgment along with the records of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South and West at Namchi be transmitted forthwith.