JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. I have heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. None appears on call for the respondent No.2. 2. By filing this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner has prayed for condonation of 99 days delay beyond the period of limitation in filing the accompanying appeal against the judgment and award passed in a motor accident claims case. 3. In paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the application, the applicant has made the below quoted statements:- “4. That, your humble petitioner begs to state that as a Private Sector Undertaking, it is required to act strictly as per the laid down procedures and as such, the files are required to be routed from one office to another and from one table to another and thereafter only the final decision as to whether to prefer an appeal or not is taken after obtaining the opinion of the dealing advocates as well as the advocate practicing in High Court and in this procedural aspect, a considerable time is spent. 5. That, your humble petitioner begs to submit that in order to take a decision whether an appeal is to be filed or not, the files are required to be collected from dealing advocate and then it is processed from the policy issuing Branch to the dealing Regional Office and thereafter to the Head Office, who also requires legal opinion from the Company’s advocate before coming to a decision and consequently, it is quiet natural that considerable time is spent in movement of the file from one office to another and from one table to another and taking decision thereon. In this case the dealing office of the petitioner Company received the copy of the judgment and award along with the opinion of the advocate on 03.03.2015 and the said Office after completing all formalities sent the entire file to Kolkata Regional Office and all these took time to reach Regional office in the third week of March 2015. Again the Regional Office after completing necessary formalities had sent the entire case record to its Head Office which had reached head office only in second week of April 2015. Again the Regional Office after completing necessary formalities had sent the entire case record to its Head Office which had reached head office only in second week of April 2015. The Head office officials had deliberated among themselves took advise from their counsel about the next course of action and the said Advocate opined that it was a fit case wherein an appeal be filed by impugning the judgment and order/award. In the said process about a week’s time was required and thereafter the officials in the Mumbai head office had deliberated amongst themselves and took the decision to file the appeal. Thereafter office at Mumbai had sent the record to dealing office at Guwahati which had received the file in mid part of May 2015. After completion of correspondences and formalities the papers of the case were sent to the advocate on 29.05.2015, who had other equally important matters to be prepared and attended to. Hence he could deal with this case only after about seven days and some days were required for preparation of the Memo of Appeal, stay petition and the instant petition for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay, as mentioned above, could not have been avoided in view of the circumstances narrated above. Hence in spite of best efforts made by the Company, the appeal could not be filed within time. 6. That your humble petitioner begs to state that this delay is totally unintentional and has occasioned due to genuine and sufficient cogent reasons and this delay is now required to be condoned so that the appeal filed along with this petition for delay condonation may kindly be taken up for admission hearing after the delay is condoned by this Hon’ble Court.” 4. From a bare reading of the herein before quoted statements, it appears that the statements are absolutely vague. The procedures of which there is a mention in paragraph 4 is not a statutory procedure, but those procedures are manner of internal management of the affairs of the applicant. From a bare reading of the herein before quoted statements, it appears that the statements are absolutely vague. The procedures of which there is a mention in paragraph 4 is not a statutory procedure, but those procedures are manner of internal management of the affairs of the applicant. Therefore, if the applicant devise a procedure of moving the file from one table to the other, the applicant are doing so at their own risk because in the present application in hand, there is no statement showing (i) whether the various tables where the files are routed are in any manner concerned with the decision making process to file the appeal or not, (ii) how many table to table the files were routed, (iii) the time for which each particular table had detained the file. That apart, in the absence of disclosure what was the opinion by the learned advocate conducting the trial, the explanation that the file was sent to the learned advocate practicing in the High Court is not at all convincing. Moreover, there is no statement that the learned advocate conducting the trial had held up the file, it is not understood from the vague statements how much time and importantly, why at all any time was consumed just for the purpose of collecting the file from the said advocate conducting the trial, when the specific statement in paragraph 5 of the present case is that the petitioner company had ‘received’ the copy of judgment and award along with the opinion of the advocate on 03.03.2015. Moreover, there is no disclosure what were those formalities and how much time was consumed in doing those alleged formalities. Even after getting the advocate’s opinion at the end of the applicant’s Head Office at Mumbai, their officials once again deliberated amongst themselves to take a decision to file appeal. No dates are mentioned and it is stated that file was sent back to Guwahati in mid part of May, 2015. Again there were correspondence and formalities, without any disclosure as to what were those correspondence and formalities, and the case file was send to their counsel. Then it is further stated that their learned counsel had other important matters to be prepared and attended to, thereby indicating that the present appeal was not ‘so important’. 5. Again there were correspondence and formalities, without any disclosure as to what were those correspondence and formalities, and the case file was send to their counsel. Then it is further stated that their learned counsel had other important matters to be prepared and attended to, thereby indicating that the present appeal was not ‘so important’. 5. Although the vague date of receipt of files by Regional Office and Head Office is ignored, but as per the averments, once again the Head Officials deliberated among themselves and took yet another advice from another advocate. If that be so, it is apparent that the Head Office was taking an independent decision in the matter of filing of the appeal, for which the entire process of moving the file from table to table in Branch Office and Regional Office of the applicant and of availing opinion from conducting advocate as well as learned advocate practicing in the High Court, as portrayed by the applicant was a totally wasteful exercise, which should not have been done in the first place. If the Head Office of the Applicant has no trust on the officials at Branch level and Regional Office level as well as upon the advice given by conducting Advocate and Advocate having High Court practice ought not to have been allowed to spend even one moment over the file after judgment and award has been passed by the learned tribunal. The explanation is so vague that not even one person or authority is identified who was instrumental in causing even a day’s the delay. Under the circumstances, if the applicant allows the file to be moved from table to table of officials who have no decision making authority to file an appeal and assuming the said officials had any decision making authority, their decision in the matter was of no consequence, then the applicants are doing so at their own risk. 6. The explanations as given in the herein before quoted paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the instant application are not at all found to be satisfactory from a insurer like the appellant, who are in a business of insuring citizens and goods in the Country, have a social responsibility to see that at least they do not become a source of prolongation of a litigation under the social and beneficial legislation. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the reasons assigned as the cause of delay establishes that the delay of 99 days has not been properly or satisfactorily explained. The said causes are held not to constitute just, or proper, or good, or sufficient cause for which the connected appeal could not be filed on time, rather the said statements reflects that the applicant was casual in all stages of decision making process in the Branch level, Regional Office level and in the Head Office level. The present application is a stereotype application, which gives an impression that the applicant had no intention to display any sense of promptitude even where it affects its own interest or that the applicant has taken for granted that delay would always be condoned even if applications are prepared and filed in a casual and routine manner without satisfactorily explaining the delay. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of 99 days in presenting the connected appeal is rejected. 7. Before parting with the records, this court is of the view that save and except a few cases, a majority of the insurance claims are generally on a pre-set pattern and the appellant, who are in the business of insuring risk is supposed to be equipped with some sort of mechanism to calculate the estimated award expected in a case and, as such, it is for the applicant to devise a way and means to expeditiously challenge those awards, to which they do not agree to. However, this is only a passing remark, and the applicant is left to decide its own course while taking steps in courts. 8. After the judgment was passed, the learned counsel for the applicant made a fervent prayer to allow the applicant some time to file an additional affidavit to bring on record better particulars to explain the delay. However, as the order dismissing the application was passed in open court, the said prayer is declined. 9. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed without cost.