An insurer’s appeal without an application to condone delay is dismissed as time-barred.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Tribunal’s judgment dated 2 May 2014 in MAC Case No. 440 of 1997.

The appeal was filed 137 days late and was not accompanied by an application to condone the delay.

It remained pending for more than a decade without steps being taken on the limitation issue.

The insurer challenged its liability to pay compensation; the Court also noted that the award had not been satisfied and that National Insurance Company, a party before the Tribunal, had not been joined in the appeal.

Respondent No. 4 had died, and counsel submitted that his legal heirs were already on record.

1. Whether the appeal, filed 137 days out of time without an application for condonation of delay, should be dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. Whether any consequential orders were required concerning the deceased Respondent No. 4 and the statutory deposit.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court stated that delay in preferring an appeal may be considered liberally where the appellant approaches the Court with promptitude; however, the appeal remains subject to limitation, and an appellant must take steps to seek condonation of delay.

The judgment cites no specific limitation provision or precedent.

The insurer filed the appeal 137 days late but neither sought condonation nor took steps to address limitation during the more than ten years the appeal remained pending.

The Court considered that inaction inconsistent with the promptitude required for liberal consideration of delay.

It also noted that the claimants should not be deprived of their award merely because the insurer had filed an appeal without pursuing its admission, and observed that National Insurance Company had not been joined as a party.

The Court therefore dismissed the appeal on limitation grounds without determining the insurer’s substantive challenge to liability.

It directed that Respondent No. 4’s name be deleted from the cause title, as his legal heirs were already on record.

The statutory deposit, with accrued interest, was to be refunded subject to the insurer depositing its share of the award with the Tribunal within eight weeks; that amount was to be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with the Tribunal’s award.