Condonation of delay requires proper explanation; unexplained delay is not excusable.

The appellant, Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, filed an appeal challenging a judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹5,00,000 with 6% interest for the death of Takeshwar @ Takesh.

The award was issued on December 4, 2023, but the appeal was filed on August 12, 2024, resulting in a delay of 160 days.

The Insurance Company attributed the delay to the process of forwarding documents from its Raipur office to the Regional office in Indore for sanction before filing the appeal.

The court primarily applied the principles for condonation of delay as laid down by the Supreme Court in H. Guruswamy & Ors. Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs. [2025] 1 SCR 7643.

This precedent emphasizes that courts should not adopt a "liberal approach" to condone inordinate or unjustified delays.

It also highlights that the length of the delay is a relevant factor, and parties cannot set their own period of limitation, requiring bona fides in the explanation for delay, and urging courts to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation before considering the merits of the main matter.

The court found that the appellant Insurance Company did not adequately explain the 160-day delay.

The application for condonation of delay failed to specify key dates, such as when documents were forwarded to the Raipur office, when they were subsequently sent to the Indore Regional office, when sanction for appeal was granted, and when counsel was instructed.

Applying the principles from H. Guruswamy, the court reiterated that a "liberal GGGapproach" cannot be used to excuse unjustified delays and that the explanation for the delay must demonstrate bona fides.

The appellant's general explanation, without specific timelines or details, was deemed insufficient to account for the substantial delay.

Consequently, the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 01/2024) was rejected.

As a result, the appeal itself was dismissed.

No costs were awarded.