Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member: There is delay of four months and 21 days in filing this appeal. For seeking condonation of delay a misc.application no. 350/2010 is filed and it has been supported by an affidavit which is sworn by the officer of the insurance company. The usual ground mentioned by the insurance company is that to seek permission Marathi judgment was sent to Chennai office. But since Chennai office was not knowing Marathi, they requested to get it translated in to English. Again it was translated into English and sent to Chennai office. Chennai office in turn sent it to Mumbai office/Regional office no.1 and then Mumbai office decided to file appeal. In the process delay of four months and 21 days had occurred. Counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. V/s. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 92 SC wherein it has held that the power to condone the delay is conferred on the Courts in order to enable them to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matter on merits. It further held that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a Cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that, “ A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account if its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. We must see whether just and sufficient cause has been made out in condonation of delay application”. In this case initial 30 days statutory period was available to the insurance company. Besides those 30 days, insurance company has consumed four months 21 days in filing this appeal and lame excuses have put forth to condone the delay saying that Chennai office did not know Marathi and had asked for translation of judgement to give permission whether appeal should be filed or not. Insurance company has taken four months to translate few pages of said judgement, is not a just and sufficient cause. Translation of 12 Marathi pages can be done in one or two days. Four months time is not required for the same. Likewise movement of file from regional office no.1 to regional office no.3 also consumed time, is also a lame excuse because both the offices are situated at Mumbai itself. Therefore, we are of the view that just and sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay is not properly shown in delay condonation application. As such, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Appeal is filed belatedly just to harass the poor consumer, who is undoubtedly a senior citizen of 81 years and his amount of more than Rs.6 Lakhs has been withheld by filing this appeal. Hence, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. M.A.No.350/2010 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rule. | 
