JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to condone the delay in filing the CMA SR No.94640 of 2012 against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Principal District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram in MCOP No.525 of 2008.) 1. The present Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 504 days in filing the appeal, challenging the the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Principal District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram in MCOP No.525 of 2008. 2. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this miscellaneous petition is that the papers were sent to the Regional Office for taking further action who had forwarded the same to the Appeal Panel Lawyer at Chennai, seeking his opinion. He had asked for the copy of the claim petition and the counter statement and our Lower Court counsel was asked to send the same. On receiving the requisite documents, opinion was given suggesting to file an appeal. The papers were misplaced and after tracing out, the papers were sent to the petitioner's counsel for filing the appeal and the appeal is being filed on 02.11.2012 resulting in the delay of 504 days in filing the appeal. 3. The appellant is the New India Assurance Company Limited, Pondicherry. The authorities of the New India Assurance Company Limited are bound to act vigilantly in the interest of public as they are dealing with the public funds. The reasons stated that the papers were misplaced is certainly unacceptable and the Competent Authorities are bound to initiate action against all the officials, who all are responsible for the lapses, negligence and dereliction of duty. 4. The officials, who all are receiving decent salary from the public money are bound to function vigilantly and prudently. Casual way of dealing with public funds can never be tolerated and the Authorities Competent are also duty bound to institute immediate and stringent action against all such officials, who all are responsible for the lapses, negligence and dereliction of duty. Thus, by simply stating that papers were misplaced and after tracing out, the papers were sent to the counsel for the petitioner for filing an appeal, cannot be an acceptable ground for the purpose of condoning the huge delay. Thus, by simply stating that papers were misplaced and after tracing out, the papers were sent to the counsel for the petitioner for filing an appeal, cannot be an acceptable ground for the purpose of condoning the huge delay. A meager delay can be condoned if the reasons are otherwise acceptable. However, enormous delay cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner. 5. Every appeal is to be filed, within the period of limitation. Condonation of delay is a discretionary power and an exception while exercising the power of discretion, the Courts are also bound to act judiciously and the reasons for such condonations are also to be recorded. In the absence of any valid and acceptable reasons, the Court would not condone the enormous delay in filing the appeal. 6. The condone delay petition is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal is to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 173(1) of the said Act. Accordingly, 90 days time limit is contemplated. The Proviso Clause to Section 173(1) stipulates that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of 90 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. Thus, there must be sufficient cause for delay and the reasons stated for such an enormous delay in filing the appeal is also to be explained and must be an acceptable one. 7. Law of Limitation as contemplated under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is the law. The condonation of delay is an exception under the proviso clause. Thus, the condonation of delay can never be a mechanical affair and the High Court cannot condone the delay in a routine manner. When the law provides limitation for preferring an appeal and the proviso clause as contemplates the power of discretion to the Court to condone the delay, then such discretionary powers are to be exercised judiciously and by recording reasons. It is not as if, the High Courts can condone the delay in a routine manner, so as to dilute the law of limitation as contemplated under the said Act. Thus, in all cases, where there is an enormous delay in filing an appeal, the Courts are bound to ascertain the reasons and its genuinity and the acceptability of such reasons. Thus, in all cases, where there is an enormous delay in filing an appeal, the Courts are bound to ascertain the reasons and its genuinity and the acceptability of such reasons. The reasons must be candid and the Courts are bound to record such reasons, while condoning long delay. 8. In all such delay, the reasons must be candid, enabling this Court to exercise the power of discretion under the Proviso Clause to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the absence of any such convincing reasons, the Courts would not condone the huge delay in a routine manner, which would defeat the very purpose of law of limitation as contemplated under the statute. 9. Power of discretion and the exception clauses are to be exercised properly and in order to mitigate certain circumstances arising on account of the certain events or incidents, which must be an acceptable one. Contrarily, certain reasons, which are flimsy and routine, cannot be a ground to condone the huge delay. 10. In view of the reasons stated above and also the fact that the petitioner has not established any acceptable reason for the purpose of condoning the delay of 504 days and therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay and consequently, M.P.No.3 of 2013 stands dismissed and C.M.A.SR.No.94640 of 2012 is rejected at the SR Stage itself. However, there shall be no order as to costs.