JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 07.05.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 215 of 2018 whereby the appellant has been directed to make payment of compensation of Rs.14,20,000/- to the applicants. I.A. No. 7296 of 2023 2. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 147 days caused in preferring the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that immediately after passing of the award, the certified copy of the same was obtained and an opinion was sought to prefer an appeal against the impugned award. Thereafter, the steps were taken to get approval for the same and the entire file was sent to the higher officials. After receipt of approval, the same was forwarded to the concerned advocate for taking appropriate decision in the matter, who advised to procure all the documents as well as to deposit the statutory amount. Thus, the delay in filing the present appeal has been caused due to procedural formalities. 4. In the case of “Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.” reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 5. This Court is of the view that the law laid down in the aforesaid case is equally applicable to the Insurance Companies and they have the strict liability to explain the delay caused in taking statutory recourse. Movement of file from one table to another or one office to another, cannot be said to be a justified reason for committing delay in preferring statutory appeal. The Insurance Companies cannot be allowed to move before the Courts at any time ignoring the period of limitation prescribed under law. The delay cannot be condoned mechanically in the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation. The claim for condonation of delay made by the Insurance Companies on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the government/Insurance Companies and the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process cannot be accepted. 6. In the case of Brahampal @ Sammay & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 512 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “22. Undoubtedly, the statute has granted the courts with discretionary powers to condone the delay, however, at the same time it also places an obligation upon the party to justify that he was prevented from abiding by the same due to the existence of “sufficient cause”. Although there exists no straitjacket formula for the courts to condone delay, but the courts must not only take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case but also the conduct of the parties. Although there exists no straitjacket formula for the courts to condone delay, but the courts must not only take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case but also the conduct of the parties. The concept of reasonableness dictates that the courts even while taking a liberal approach must weigh in the rights and obligations of both the parties. When a right has accrued in favour of one party due to gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude of the other, this Court shall refrain from exercising the aforesaid discretionary relief.” 7. Thus, the Court has a discretionary power to condone the delay looking to the facts and circumstance of each case and also the conduct of the parties. In the cases where the inordinate delay exits and the same is attributable to the party’s inaction and negligence, the Courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect the substantial rights of the parties. 8. Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1988’] is a beneficial legislation intended to protect the rights of the victims affected in road accidents. The legislative intent behind it is to provide appropriate compensation to the victims and to protect their substantive rights. The interpretation of a beneficial legislation must be remedial and in furtherance with the purpose which the statute seeks to serve. If any compensation is awarded to the victim of road accident and the Insurance Companies seek to challenge such an award, they are required to act promptly and if inordinate delay is caused by them in filing the appeal merely on the ground that the delay has occasioned due to procedural formalities, such plea of the Insurance Companies is not worth to be entertained as the same will cause serious prejudice to the victim in whose favour the award has been passed and under such circumstance, the entire purpose of the Act, 1988 will be defeated. 9. Since the appellant has not appropriately explained the delay of 147 days committed in filing the present appeal, the same cannot be condoned. 10. I.A. No. 7296 of 2023 is accordingly dismissed. M. A. No. 10 of 2023 11. Since I.A. No. 7296 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay has already been dismissed, the appeal is also dismissed accordingly. 9. Since the appellant has not appropriately explained the delay of 147 days committed in filing the present appeal, the same cannot be condoned. 10. I.A. No. 7296 of 2023 is accordingly dismissed. M. A. No. 10 of 2023 11. Since I.A. No. 7296 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay has already been dismissed, the appeal is also dismissed accordingly. 12 If the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited by the appellant before the Registrar General of this Court, the same shall be transferred in the bank account of the concerned Tribunal and the said amount shall be included/adjusted while releasing compensation by it to the claimants.