IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 418 of 2014 ----- National Insurance Company Limited, Main Road Hotel Park Building 1st Floor, Ramgarh Cantt. P.O & P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist.-Hazaribagh now Ramgarh, represent through its legal cell, Ranchi, P.O-GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi … …. Appellant Versus 1. Nazma Khatoon, W/o Late Abbas @ Bagha Khan, R/o Muslim Bazar at Giridih, At present Kuju, P.O.-Kuju, P.S.-Mandu, Dist.- Hazaribagh 2. Khatija Khatoon, W/o Late Abbas @ Bagha Khan, R/o Village- Ichak Kalan, P.O & P.S.-Simaria, Dist.-Chatra 3. Bhagwat Prasad Singh, S/o Late C.D. Singh, R/o Adarsh Nagar, K.B. Gate Kuju, P.O.-Kuju, P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Hazaribagh 4. Deepak Verma, S/o Sonu Verma, R/o House No. 1269, Sonari, P.O & P.S.-Sonari, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum 5. Awadh Bihari Singh, S/o Shankar Singh, R/o Bagheda Colony, Jamshedpur, permanent address R/o Nodhi, P.O & P.S.-Piro, Dist.- Bhojpur, Bihar … …. Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate ----- Oral Order 12 / Dated : 12.02.2025 I.A. No. 1537 of 2015 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in this interlocutory application which has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 167 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. The notice was earlier issued to the respondents in this case after which respondent no. 1 entered into their appearance and filed Vakalatnama. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the delay was not intentional and was caused due to communication gap between the Branch Office and Branch Manager and after taking legal opinion in the matter the appeal could be filed. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the claimant respondent that accidental death took place on 10.04.2003 and more 2 than 20 years have elapsed yet the claimants have not received the meagre compensation amount of Rs 1,32,000/- awarded under Section 166 of the MV Act. 5. I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the claimants that the very object of the providing compensation is defeated due to laches in preferring appeal and procrastinating the matter. Section 3 of the Limitation Act enjoins a court to dismiss any suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made, after the period of limitation prescribed therefore by the Schedule irrespective of the fact whether the opponent had set up the plea of limitation or not. It is the duty of the court not to proceed with the application if it is made beyond the period of limitation prescribed. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, the grounds taken for condonation of delay are not cogent and convincing to allow the interlocutory application for condonation of delay. Interlocutory application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected. Since I.A. No. 1537 of 2015 is rejected, M.A. No 418 of 2014 stands dismissed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra