S;^:;'^te HIGH GOURT OF eHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ DrVISIONBBNCH: HON*B]bBSHRIT.P^®HARMA& HON»BLEiBHRIR.L.^HANWAR.JJ. M.A.<5.N6.3S1/2010 •;^p APPBUANtS Claimaate ••^ 1, Smt. Shyama Bm I^^^^^^M Kuinarage 38 years, j 2 Ku. Saiipt^^^^^ M^ Naod Kumm-Maii^ 3 Saiideep Kumar^^^^^^^^M Naixd KxiinarMarko i ;'. ... ' ^^^^^^^^^^^^ R^ Nand Kum^M AU Caste ^&md, R/cj ViUs^e^oraklipur, Telisil aDd I>istrict Dmdoii, MF) (Appellaat No.4 minD jg^Bid^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^ ^ appellaiit N^ J ^ raBSPONDBHTS 1 NON- CLAIMANTS Versus KaBJiaiya s/o^^^^^^^^^R :years,1 .•,:;' •;:.,. .!'. ! •.: .,;..,'.11.1,; B/p village Ddndg^ No. GPS 7747 Tati. LQrmi, District Bilaspur (<3^1;;11;1:. 1-;: ! .^ :-<- Abdul Hamy Chhofapara, Raipur,^p^ No. CP& 7747, Tah< and District Raipur (c^''''. 1:'\- .1:'^^ The^^^^^^N^ Bilasptu' ThrQugh Bi^^^ New India Assurance G<)^^ Rajendra Nagar, 1 Tah + Distocict Bilaspur(CG) APPBM,UNDBR8E^^6Nl730FTHEMt>TOR^VlBHK^ ACT1988 preseiifc: Shri Aviaash Mishra, counsel for fhe appeUaats. None for respoudents No. 1 & 2, Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for rcspondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 2ndAugust, 2010) Per T. P. Sharma, J. 1. Heard on I.A.No.l for condonation ofdelay ia fUrag Uie appeal, 2. This appeal has been preferred after 582 days of its liinitation, The appeUant has taken ground in I.A.No,! fhat she is iUiterate aad does not know fhe provisions of law; fherefore, she could not file fhe appeal wifhm Umitation. 3. This ground alone is not sufficient for explaining the delay of 582 days i.e. more fhaa 1 l/2 years. Alfhough, tihis is aa appeal against the award of dismissal of fhe claun of coinpensation, fUed on behalf of the appellants on account of deafh of Nand Kuiaar on 11.6.2000 as a result ofmotor accident on 27.7.90. 4. NonnaUy, at fhe tmie of considering fhe application for condonation of delay, Court is required to take liberal view to provide aa opportunity of contestmg the case on uierits, J?<i& ia the present case even otherwise, the claLm petition has been disiaissed by fhe Tribunal on fhe ground that appellaats have falled to show fhat fhe deceased- Nand Kiimar, who died on 11,6.2000, was died as a result of motor accident dated 27.7.90. Present appellaats have filed fh.e claini petition before (£P fhe Claims Tribunal ia the year 2006 after a lapse of 6 years of fhe aUeged deafh. 5, Award mipugned also perased. 6. Learaed Tribunal has discussed the issue ia detail and amved at a finding fhat fhere is no evidence to connect fhe deafh of deceased Nand Kiiinar with fhe niotor accident took place on 27.7,90. 7. On perusal ofthe-award iiapugned, even we do not fuid ^v aay case eS; nients. The appeUaats have failed to explain the delay ia filing fhe appeal, fhat too of 582 days. 8. Consequentiy, I.A.No, 1 is liable to be disiaissed aad it is hereby dismissed. 9. Accordiagly, fhe appeal is also dismissed. 10. No order as to costs, 7^Vv^.Y^ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge