(2017) AAC 1698 : (2018) 4 ACC 352 : (2018) ACJ 1003 : (2017) 4 CivilLJ 797 : (2017) 3 TAC 779 SIKKIM HIGH COURT Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. MRS. KRISHNA KUMARI LIMBOO — Respondent I.A. No. 1 of 2017 in MAC App. No. 3 of 2017 Decided on : 23-05-2017 Advocates Appeared : Mr. Yadev Sharma with Mr. Dilip Tamang, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. K.B. Chettri and Mr. Umesh Gurung, Advocates, for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.; Mr. Yogesh Gurung, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 4 ORDER : Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.—The Petitioner/Appellant seeks condonation of delay of fifty-five days, the grounds set forth being that the Judgment was pronounced on 21.09.2016 in MACT Case No. 47 of 2015 by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim at Gangtok (for brevity 'learned Tribunal'). Copy thereof was applied for on 17.12.2016, which was made available on the same date. Thus, the Appeal ought to have been filed on 21.12.2016, however, the delay occurred on account of official procedure which involved forwarding the File to the Jaipur Head Office through the Kolkata Branch Office, which followed the same route on return. Due to practical problems, the File took considerable time to reach the Kolkata Branch Office, hence the prayer for condonation. That, as a good case on merits exists, the Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the delay is not condoned. 2. Per contra, it was put forth by learned Counsel for the Respondents that although, the Judgment was pronounced on 21.09.2016, admittedly, copy thereof was sought for only on 17.12.2016, after about three months. That, Law requires that sufficient cause must be given to the Court to condone the delay, by merely enumerating that delay occurred on account of official procedure will not suffice. Apart from which, details and dates have been withheld. Besides, the grounds raised in the Appeal also do not deserve any consideration, as the learned Trial Court has computed the Award based on the Salary of the deceased which was duly supported by a Salary Certificate Exhibit-12, issued by the employer of the deceased, this Document has remained uncontroverted by the Petitioner and cannot be reagitated without reason. Hence, the Petition and the Appeal be dismissed. 3. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 4. Hence, the Petition and the Appeal be dismissed. 3. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 4. It is evident that the Petitioner has been lackadaisical in seeking a copy of the impugned Judgment before the learned Tribunal taking around three months after pronouncement of Judgment to obtain it. No reason for this delay has been furnished. Thereafter, the Petitioner has not deemed it essential to mention the dates of the File movement viz; when the File was forwarded to the Kolkata Branch, the Jaipur Branch and when it was returned via the same route or the grounds that led to such delay. It needs no reiteration here that grounds for delay must be explained to the satisfaction of the Court and the reasons must be substantial. The Petitioner appears to have taken steps at a leisurely pace and thereafter, the cumbersome bureaucratic procedure has confounded the process. Be that as it may, if sufficient cause had been put forward for the delay, discretion in favour of the Petitioner would undoubtedly have been extended by this Court. The grounds explaining the delay however lack bona fides and therefore, merit no consideration. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Petition for condonation of delay is rejected and disposed of, as also the Appeal.