IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** F.A.O. No.625 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:26.04.2011 Anil Kumar .....Appellant Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- None. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (Oral) This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation. This appeal has been filed after a delay of 821 days of limitation period. Along with this appeal, an application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The main grounds raised in this application for condonation of delay reads thus:- “That due to the accident in question, appellant was notable to move, when the case was decided, because appellant had suffered 15% permanent disability in the accident in question and he has given the complete file to prefer an appeal before this Hon'ble High Court to his relative and when he has not received any summon or information of his case and when he has enquired about his case then his relative said that he has given the papers to one Advocate of the High Court, but when the appellant has enquired about his case in the last week of F.A.O. No.625 of 2011 (O&M) -2- September, 2010, then he came to know that his relative has not preferred any appeal, before this Hon'ble Court and in view of the above, delay of 821 days in filing the present appeal has occurred, which is neither intentional rather it was beyond the control of the applicant.” There is nothing on record to support the aforesaid averment made in this application. Even otherwise, the averment is very vague. Nature of the injury suffered by the appellant has not been explained due to which he could not file the appeal in time. Even the details of the relative to whom the appeal was entrusted has not been given. It has also not come on record as to from whom he inquired about the filing of the appeal. Thus, the appellant has failed to give sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The prayer is therefore rejected. Since prayer for condoning the delay in filing this appeal is rejected, consequently, the appeal is dismissed as time barred. April 26, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE