Judgment Wangdi, J. 1. This is to consider an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’) filed on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 30-11-2013 passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok (in short the ‘Claims Tribunal’) in MACT Case No.26 of 2012 by which compensation of Rs.5,24,069/-(Rupees five lakhs twenty four thousand and sixty nine) only was awarded in favour of the Respondent No.1 for injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22-03-2013 while travelling from Gangtok to Kupup. 2. Without going into the merits of the finding and the correctness of the compensation awarded, we may first consider the application for condonation of delay. 3. The Appeal has admittedly been filed with a delay of 111 days. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether the Appellant-Insurance Company was prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ from preferring the Appeal within the stipulated period of 90 days as provided in Section 173 of the Act. The grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay are as follows:- “2. That the judgment in the aforesaid case was pronounced by the Ld. Claim Tribunal on 30/11/2013 but the application for the said judgment for filled on 2/12/2013 when the appellant was informed about the said judgment by its investigator/advocate. Thereafter the judgment was made available to the appellant on 7/2/2014 but the same was issued to the appellant on 10/2/2014. As the judgment reached the office on 10/2/2014, the officers of its Gangtok Branch again directed its investigator/ officer to collect other relevant documents pertaining to the case and therefore by 27/2/2014 the documents reached the Gangtok office. 3. That after vetting through all the documents by the officers of Gangtok Branch office had immediately prepared necessary notes and had sent relevant documents seeking necessary directions from its Regional Office at Siliguri on 15/3/2014 so that necessary directions from its officers could be complied with. 4. That accordingly the documents reached the Regional Office, Siliguri on 18/3/2014 and same was forwarded to the (sic) its legal department on 19/3/2014 for seeking legal opinion. Its legal department gave its opinion on 30/4/2014. 4. That accordingly the documents reached the Regional Office, Siliguri on 18/3/2014 and same was forwarded to the (sic) its legal department on 19/3/2014 for seeking legal opinion. Its legal department gave its opinion on 30/4/2014. The department took some time as the department looks after the entire eastern region and all the branch offices located at various states including Sikkim, West Bengal, Bihar. On getting the opinion the department further directed to sent (sic) the same to its Head Office at Kolkatta for final approval and necessary directions. 5. That the documents reached the office on 3/5/2014 at Kolkatta for seeking necessary directions and opinion. That after some deliberation in the Head Office it was opined (sic) that some more documents were needed for arriving at the final decision. Accordingly the local branch office on 10/5/2014 had send (sic) all the relevant documents and other papers pertaining to the said case to its Head office which reached the same on 14/5/2014. The Head Office in turn after further deliberation on the said case finally reached a conclusion to file a case before this Appellant (sic) Court and necessary directions and letters reached the office in the month of June, 2014. 6. That thereafter after the appointment of the advocate which inturn had prepared the Memo of Appeal had sent to the Appellants for vetting in the last week of June, 2014. On the second week of July, 2014 the Appellants again stated to make necessary corrections in the Memo of Appeal which was accordingly done and again sent to the office of the Appellants on 24/7/2014. The branch office here in Gangtok again sent the same to the Regional office at Siliguri, West Bengal and same was again referred to the Legal Department on 26/7/2014 and the legal opinion was given to the office at Siliguri on 5/8/2014. Thereafter, finally the same was sent for final approval to the head Office at Kolkatta on 6/8/2014 which reached the same on 10/8/2014 and same was finalized by 20/08/2014. Thereafter the memo of Appeal finally reached the office of the Counsel on 24/8/2014 which inturn got the same signed by the office on 25/8/2014 and same is filed today on 26/8/2014.” 4. Thereafter the memo of Appeal finally reached the office of the Counsel on 24/8/2014 which inturn got the same signed by the office on 25/8/2014 and same is filed today on 26/8/2014.” 4. As would appear from the above, it is quite apparent that the Appellant-Insurance Company had applied for a copy of the judgment only on 02-12-2013 when the judgment had already been passed on 30-11-2013. There is no explanation for delay except to state that the application for copy was filed on 02-12-2013 when the Appellant-Insurance Company was informed about the judgment by its Investigator/Advocate. Then 17 days were taken between 10-02-2014 to 17-02-2014 by the Investigator/Officer to collect other documents pertaining to the case when those obviously would have been available with the Advocate dealing with the case. Thereafter it took 18 days commencing from 27-02-2014 to 15-03-2014, for the officers of the Gangtok Branch Office only to vet the documents and prepare notes for seeking necessary directions from its Regional Office at Siliguri which is just about 3 hours away from Gangtok. After receiving the notes and the documents on 18th of the month, the Regional Office forwarded it to its legal department seeking legal opinion. The legal department took a period between 19-03-2014 to 30-04-2014, i.e., almost 1 month and 11 days to give its opinion. The reason given for the time taken is that the department looks after the entire Eastern Region and all the Branch Offices in various States including Sikkim, West Bengal and Bihar. Ignoring the other dates, it is then stated that the local office sent relevant documents and other papers pertaining to the case to its Head Office on 10-05-2014 that reached on 14-05-2014 and the Head Office decided to file an appeal against the impugned judgment regarding which letters and directions were received by the Appellant in June, 2014. However, as would appear from paragraph 6 of the application, during the intervening period between June, 2014 to August, 2014 all that the Appellant had done was only finalise the Memo of Appeal. However, as would appear from paragraph 6 of the application, during the intervening period between June, 2014 to August, 2014 all that the Appellant had done was only finalise the Memo of Appeal. It is not the case of the Appellant-Insurance Company that they are novice in the matters of litigation nor is it credible for this Court to accept that they were not aware of the procedure and requirements necessary for filing an Appeal considering that the Appellant-National Insurance Company is one of the eminent litigants well-experienced in matters of litigation. The reasons, therefore, does not appear to be satisfactory. 5. As would appear from the application there is no explanation at all as to the delay that was caused between the different dates and, the reasons given for some of the instances of the delay are vague and devoid of any material particulars. The sequence of events unfolding in the application also reflects casualness of the highest order and utter disregard to the fact that the Claimant-Respondent No.1 is a victim of a fatal accident. In my view, this does not fall within the meaning of ‘sufficient cause’ as contemplated under second proviso to Section 173 of the Act. The Appeal would, therefore, be clearly barred by the law of limitation. 6. The cases of State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and Others : AIR 1996 SC 1632 and State of Assam and Others vs. Susrita Holdings Pvt. Ltd. : AIR 2014 SC 2307 cited at the bar are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. The first case of Chandra Mani (supra) was rendered in the context of delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal while the second one Susrita Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was filed on the delay in filing Appeal against an order passed in the writ jurisdiction exercised by the High Court. The present case deals with a judgment passed in a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act which is a benevolent piece of legislation which requires different consideration. As held in the case of Chandra Mani (supra) what constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and first rule and that whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay is a question of fact dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. As held in the case of Chandra Mani (supra) what constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and first rule and that whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay is a question of fact dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It has also been held that preferably the Court should decide the mattes on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. In the present case, as would appear hereafter, even on its merits the Appeal would fail. 7. Notwithstanding the above, the Appeal filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company would not be sustainable in law as noted above. The right to appeal under Section 173 of the Act by an insurer is circumscribed by the provisions of Sections 149 and 170 of the Act. 8. Mr. Manish Kumar Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, has confined the Appeal only on the question of quantum of the claim on two accounts, namely, future medical expenses and pain and suffering. These, however, do not fall within the provision of Section 149 of the Act. The Appeal perhaps would have been maintainable had the requirements under Section 170 of the Act existed. It is not a case where in the course of the enquiry the Learned Claims Tribunal was satisfied that - “(a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim,” Since the provisions of Section 170 of the Act are not attracted in the present case, the Appellant-Insurance Company is barred from contesting the claim on any ground. 9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Others : (2002) 7 SCC 456 by referring to its earlier decisions, the Apex Court held as follows:– “25. We have earlier noticed that motor vehicle accident claim is a tortious claim directed against tortfeasors who are the insured and the driver of the vehicle and the insurer comes to the scene as a result of statutory liability created under the Motor Vehicles Act. The legislature has ensured by enacting Section 149 of the Act that the victims of motor vehicle are fully compensated and protected. The legislature has ensured by enacting Section 149 of the Act that the victims of motor vehicle are fully compensated and protected. It is for that reason the insurer cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation on any exclusionary clause in the insurance policy except those specified in Section 149(2) of the Act or where the condition precedent specified in Section 170 is satisfied. 26. ………………………….. Thus, unless an order is passed by the tribunal permitting the insurer to avail the grounds available to an insured or any other person against whom a claim has been made on being satisfied of the two conditions specified in Section 170 of the Act, it is not permissible to the insurer to contest the claim on the grounds which are available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. Thus where conditions precedent embodied in Section 170 is satisfied and award is adverse to the interest of the insurer, the insurer has a right to file an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation or negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle even if the insured has not filed any appeal against the quantum of compensation. Sections 149, 170 and 173 are part of one Scheme and if we give any different interpretation to Section 173 of the 1988 Act, the same would go contrary to the scheme and object of the Act. 27. This matter may be examined from another angle. The right of appeal is not an inherent right or common law right, but it is a statutory right. If the law provides that an appeal can be filed on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged on the premises that the insured or the persons against whom a claim has been made have not filed any appeal. Section 149(2) of 1988 Act limits the insurer's appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute, it is not open to an insurer to take any other plea other than those provided in Section 149(2) of 1988 Act. ……………………………………” 10. When considered on the anvil of the above, the Appeal would not be sustainable even on its merits which in any case is held to be barred by the law of limitation for the reasons stated above. ……………………………………” 10. When considered on the anvil of the above, the Appeal would not be sustainable even on its merits which in any case is held to be barred by the law of limitation for the reasons stated above. The Appeal appears to have been filed as a formality which amounts to a luxury litigation. 11. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/-to be paid by the Appellant-Insurance Company to the Claimant-Respondent No.1. 12. The Appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the sums awarded by the Learned Claims Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment with interest as prescribed in the impugned judgment. 13. A copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court of the Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim at Gangtok, for compliance.