JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. I.A. No. 11338 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 434 days in filing the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company submits that the said delay has occurred due to moving the file from one table to another table, as such, the said delay has occurred and in view of that the aforesaid delay may kindly be condoned. 4. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 22.12.2022, passed by the District Judge-IV-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 35 of 2018, whereby, an award of a sum of Rs. 7,25,200/- with simple interest @ 7.5 per annum has been allowed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on the ground of contributory negligence, the appeal may kindly be allowed. He submits that driving license was the another issue, which has wrongly been decided by the learned Tribunal and the income has not been decided in accordance with law. On these grounds, he submits that the tribunal award is not based on the facts, as such, this appeal may kindly be admitted. 6. It transpires that the claimants have filed the compensation case claiming for an amount of Rs. 17,01,000/- on the background that on 15.07.2017, in the evening, the informant’s husband Ranjeet Goshwami was returning his house after working from the shop of Binod Turi at Marajori, near Petrol Pump, in the meantime, at about 7.15 P.M. Sanjeev Gorain dashed him by his motorcycle bearing registration number JH-09-AB-4048 by rash and negligent driving from the opposite direction, due to which, her husband died on spot and pursuant to that Chandankiyari (Barmasia) P.S. Case No. 84 of 2017 was registered and chargesheet was submitted against the driver Sanjeev Gorain. 7. It further transpires that the learned court has framed altogether 9 issues to decide the said claim. Issue No. 5 was with regard to rash and negligent driving and issue No. 6 was about the valid driving license. Witnesses have supported the case of the claimants, which has not been rebutted and demolished by the insurance company, in view of that issue with regard to rash and negligent driving was not demolished by the insurance company. Issue No. 5 was with regard to rash and negligent driving and issue No. 6 was about the valid driving license. Witnesses have supported the case of the claimants, which has not been rebutted and demolished by the insurance company, in view of that issue with regard to rash and negligent driving was not demolished by the insurance company. The vehicle was insured and that has also been proved, which has been admitted by defendant No. 3, which is the insurance company. In view the chargesheet, the negligence found to be there against the driver, who is Sanjeev Gorain. As such, the negligence has not been proved so far as the deceased is concerned and the negligence is proved against another motorcycle. The monthly income of the deceased was claimed to be Rs. 9,000/- per month, as he was a cook in a hotel, however, no document was filed, as such, the learned Tribunal has calculated the income in view of the Jharkhand Government Rules, 2017 and treated him as unskilled labour and held that his income was Rs. 5460/-. Thus, on income also, the learned tribunal has taken a very lenient view. 8. So far as the driving license is concerned, the insurance company has not able to prove before the learned tribunal that it was not valid and the is duty caste upon the insurance company to prove the same, if such plea was taken, as such, on that point also, insurance company has failed. 9. In view of the above, it transpires that all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the present appeal to admit the same, has rightly been answered by the learned tribunal. On merit also, the appellant-insurance company has not been able to satisfy the court. 10. Further the only ground taken in the limitation petition for condoning the delay is due to movement of the file from one table to another table and the delay is said to be 434 days. The appellant is a company and having all the facilities like internet, email, fax in spite of that such delay has occurred and only ground is taken that in moving the file from table to table such delay has occurred. The appellant is a company and having all the facilities like internet, email, fax in spite of that such delay has occurred and only ground is taken that in moving the file from table to table such delay has occurred. The procedural red tape was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Limited and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 , wherein at paragraph Nos. 25 to 30 it has been held as under :- 25) We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months. 26) In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in 18 prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. 27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 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 bonafide, 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 19 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 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. 11. 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. 11. Sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose, as Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AIR 1964 SC 1336 , Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan , (1969) 2 SCC 770 : AIR 1970 SC 1953 , Parimal v. Veena , (2011) 3 SCC 545 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 1 : AIR 2011 SC 1150 and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai , (2012) 5 SCC 157 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 24 : AIR 2012 SC 1629 . 12. In the I.A., which is meant for condonation of delay, the only ground has been taken that the delay of 434 days has occurred in filing the present appeal due to movement of file from one officer to another officer. As such, sufficient ground is not made out to condone the aforesaid delay. 13. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, on merit also, the appellant has not ben able to establish the case and also not satisfy the court. As such, sufficient ground is not made out to condone the aforesaid delay. 13. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, on merit also, the appellant has not ben able to establish the case and also not satisfy the court. There is no merit in the appeal as well as in the I.A., which is meant for condonation of delay, as such, the main appeal as well as the I.A., meant for condonation of delay, both are dismissed for the reasons assigned hereinabove. 14. The statutory amount, deposited by the insurance company shall be transmitted back to the learned tribunal, which is b eing utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants.