2? \, H§GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ‘ AT BILASPUR Singie Bench Hon’bie Shri Dilia Raosaheb Deshmukh J. N Miscelianeous AQQeai (C4 No.6‘65 of 2006 Pawan Kumar Nishad, S/o Paras Ram Nishad, aged about 27 years, Rio Vin. Akoh', Post Dewari, P.S. Dharsiwa, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VerSUS gpeilant Claimant Resgondents Non-Agglicants 1. Ycgendra Pratap S§ngh, S/o L.P.Singh, R/o D_/2_, Sri Shantinath Nagar, Tatibandh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) F The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., through Divisional Manager, The- Orientai insurance Co. Ltd, Jaii Road, Raipur (C.G.) M eai iscelianeous Ann nder'Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shrl S.C.Verma., counsel for the appellant. Shri C.K.Sahu, counsel for respondent No.1. Shrl Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. ORAL oRDER (Passed on this 08"” day er August. 2008} Heard on M.(C.)P.No.2352/2006, an application for condonation of delay of 62 days in filing this appeal. (2) This is an appeal by the claimant. The claimant was duly represented by counsel before the tribunal anci had also obtained certified copy of the impugned award on G1 -08 filed on 11-12 -2006. The appeal wa -2006. The main ground mentioned in the application for ' ‘y; condonation of delay is that the appellant/claimant was under the impression that the appeaii’could be filed at any time; in my considered \ w ‘ , i opinion, this does not constitute any Valid ground for condV _ l i delay in filing theapL/ A u s .Fm Z,— 1b (3) Shri S.C.Verma, learned counsel for ‘the appellant has also not been able to show that he would raise any serious question at the hearing of this appeal or that there was any perversity in the impugned award passed by the tribunal, which held that the appellant/‘claimant had'miserably failed to prove that he had sustained injury due to an accident caused by a motor cycle driven by Yogendra Pratap Singh and insured by respondent N02. r Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant did not dispute that in the F.l.R. lodged immediately after the accident, the appellant/claimant had mentioned that his motor cycle was hit by an unknown matador. lt was not mentioned in the F.i.R. that the motor cycle driven by Yogendra Pratap Singh had caused the accident. The tribunal has after appreciating the evidence correctly recorded the finding that Chhail Singh Verma, A.W.—2 was not a trustworthy witness. l have perused paragraphs 9 to 12 ct the impugned award and see no perversity in the impugned award. No ground is made out for condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the appeal. The application M.(C.)P.No.2352/2006 is dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. l Sd—/ l A" l Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh ‘ Judge a : 1. Gopal