•fr^ :11 ^! /1- cyli, ','? -^ I'BLE SH'RJ RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HOS^'BLE S.URi SUN1L KUf^SAR SiNHA, J Mahendra Kumar Meshram, S/o Vasudev Meshram, aged about 30 years, Occupation - Service, R/o Radhika Nagsr, Bhilai, DistricS - Durg, Permanent address - r\3iK3pUFS, L/Giig3i9sitii UiStEiCl Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. Raj Kumar Nishad, S/o Manthar Lai Nishad, R/o Vi!!sge- Junwsni, PS Supela, Bhilai, Distrlct - Durg tff.\ (^''-'f Smt Urmila Tripathi, W/o Yogendrs Tripati R/o 77/9, Nehru Nagar East Bhilai, Bhllai, DistricS - Durg (CG) Owner 3. The new india insurance Company Limlted Through - Branch Msnager, R/o opposite Project Auto Mobiles, GE Road, Powsr House Bhliai, District - Durg (CG) iiisursr ADBeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1! 'resent : Shri Anurag Jha, counsel for the appeliant. ith (4tn Ju!y, 2008) 'he following order of the Court was passect bv a, C.J. The matter is listed today for orders on the appellant's defauit in not filing an appropriate application forcondonation of detay in fi!ing the appeal. RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.05 10:35:55 +0530 fxSiK h 2) The appeat filed by the appellant - Mahendra Kumar Meshram on 02.11.2007 aaainst the award dated 23.09.2006 passed by 9th Additional C.taim Tribuna! (FTC), Durg (CG) in Ciaim Cdse No.54/2006 is reported to be tlme barred bv as many as 81 days. 3) No application for condonation of delay was filed atong wlth the appeal. 4) In fact, no such application has been filed till date though a period of more than slx months has elapsed since the filing of the appeal and inspite of grant of opportunities by the Reglstrv in that behalf. 5) tn this vi of the matter, we do not flnd anv justification in ths prayer of learned counsel for theappetlant for grant of more time for fiiing an appropriate application for condonation of delay in filing the appea!. 6) The prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant in that behalf, therefore, is rejected. 7) As the appeliant has miserably failed in showing any cause, much less sufficient cause for the delay in fiiing the appeal, we are leftwith no other option, but, to dlsmiss the appeal as 8) The appeal, therefore, is dlsmissed as 'time-barred'. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Dsdma