The court held that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in preferring the appeal.

S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant which is an insurer of motor vehicles.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by the award of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur dated 17-12-1983, this appeal has been filed on 18-6-1984. Along with the memorandum of appeal, an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The Stamp Reporter of the Court on calculation, after taking into consideration the period taken for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment of the tribunal, has pointed out the last date for preferring the appeal to be 26-3-1984. The appeal was preferred on 18-6-1984 which was the reopening date of this Court after Summer Vacation. The Court closed for Summer Vacation on 11-5-1984.

( 3 ) UNDER S. 5 of the Limitation Act sufficient cause is to be shown explaining the delay of each day. It is not of course possible to lay down precisely as to what matters would constitute sufficient cause. It can, however, be clarified that the delay in filing an appeal should not have been for reasons indicating negligence in not taking necessary steps. What would be the necessary steps would again depend upon the circumstances of a particular cause and each case will have to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case. However, keeping the entire facts and circumstances in view the judicial discretion is to be exercised soundly in the interest of justice. It is also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of considering 'sufficient cause' different standards would not be laid down in respect of Government, Corporate bodies or private individuals, since the conditions under S. 5 i. e. sufficient cause are the same for all.

( 4 ) KEEPING the aforesaid general principle in view Courts have considered whether there is negligence of a party in preferring the appeal. In this case the certified copy of the judgment was made ready on 25-1-1984 and was made over to the appellant on 28-1-1984 which is a period within limitation. As disclosed from the petition for condonation of delay, the certified copy was sent on 15-3-1984 to the Regional Office at Calcutta for opinion and for seeking approval for payment of the compensation amount awarded. There was some correspondence between the Regional Office and the Branch Office at Sambalpur details of which were not given. It is said that the Regional Office advised for preferring an appeal which was received by the Branch Office during the summer vacation of the Court and accordingly the appeal was filed on the reopening date along with a petition for condonation of delay. It is claimed that the appellant is a public sector company and is merely a custodian of public funds collected from the citizens as tax payers and will suffer heavy pecuniary loss unnecessarily not for any other laches on the part of the appellant but for administrative difficulties.

( 5 ) WHILE examining the question to find out if there was negligence, I have kept in mind that the company is a body-corporate and has no living mind. It acts through individuals who are its employees. However, the negligence of the employees would not absolve the company in any manner. The company had appeared and contested the claim before the tribunal. It had knowledge of the award. The certified copy was obtained in right time. It was also sent to the Regional Office for advice and approval within the period of limitation. Law relating to limitation is not different in Calcutta and in Orissa. No explanation has been given as to how the matter was dealt with in the Regional Office so that there was delay in advicing to prefer the appeal. A mere statement of fact that on receipt of the advice from the Regional Office at Calcutta the appeal was preferred on the reopening date is not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay howsoever liberally construed. Once the company is conscious as indicated in the petit