HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 569 of 2003 1. Jagir Singh Siddhu aged about 54 years, 3/0 Late Karam Singh. 2. Smt. Kuijeet Kaur aged about 48 years, W/c Shri Jagir Singh. Both residents of Biock No. 4C Iii B. Tvpe Hospital Sector Dam Rajhara Distt. Durg (C.G.) Status : - Appellant No. 1 & 2 are applicants No. 1 & 2 respectivelyirf/ claim case No. 62/2000 adjudiéated by Shri P.N. Tembhurkar Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Baiod, District Durg (C.G.) Versus . ‘l. Manoj Sahoo S/o Dhutaloo Sahoo, aged about 28 years, Rio Dalli Rajhara, Tahsil — Baiod Distt. DURG(C.G.) (Driver of Truck No. M.O.T. 8952) Surendra Singh sYo Ram Varan Singh Rio Tawnahip Dalli Raihara, Tahsil Balod Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Registered owner of Truck No. MOT. 8952) 3. Manager, National nsurance Co. Ltd. Gill Complex, Near Gurudwara Station Road,‘Durg Distt. Durg {c.G.) (insurance Co. of Truck No. M.O.T. 8952) Status :- Respondents No. 1 to 3 Respondents I @ are Non—applicants No. 1 to 3 respectiveiy in ciaim case N0. 62/2000 adjudicated by Shri P.N. Tembhurker Addi. Mater Accident Claim Tribuna! Balod Distt. Durg (C.G.) tion 173(1) of Mater Vehicle Act. 1988 Shri Vipin Punjabi, learned counsei forthe 1 Rajeev Gupta, $.J. This matter is listed today for orders on the appeilants’ t default in not filing an application for condonation of delay in filing ‘ the appeal. . 2. The appeal filed by the appellants on 19-06-2003 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg vide award dated 04-02-2003 in Claim Case No. 62/2000. is reported to be time-barred by as many as 35 days. . 3. No application for condonatlon of deiay in filing the appeai ‘ was filed along with the appeal. in fact, no such application has been filed till date though a period of about 5 years has~elapsed since the filing of the appeal on 19-06-2003. The appellants have ¢ Appeai under Sec ¢ Present: l \ ‘ ‘ ‘ \ appellants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. w . Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 O R D E R {7m March, 2938) The following order of the Court was passed by subDu made an effort in para 14 of the memo of appeal to show that the appeai has been Fled Within the orescnbed period of hmltation 4 Dunno ihe course of hearing Shh Vmm PunJab! learned \ counsel for the appellant could not satisfy us that the appeal has been flied within the prescribed period of llmltatlon The appeal ill‘terefore; is barred by time as many as 35 days as reported by l the Registry. l 51.“ ‘ As the appellants have miserably failed in showing any cause much less sufficient cause for the delay in filing the l l appeal; we are left with no other option; but to dismiss the appeal l as time-barred ‘ l l 6 The appeal therefore is dismlssed as ‘tlme-barred ' l Sd/— l Sd/- l Chlef Justlce l; Dhirendra Mishra Judge