^^ '^^--^ HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B6LASPUR DiVISjQN BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS CLAIMENTS 1, M.A. (Q (PR) No. 1697 of2007 ^^-c^ ^4-4/fl^ Venkat Rao, S/o Surya Narayan Rao Aged about 17 years. Through iegaS representative; Elder Brother., Krishna Rao S/o Surya Narayan Rao, R/o Subhash Market, Khursipar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: 1. NON-APPLICANTS 2. 3. Versys Basant Chauhan, S/o ThukeS @ Thakur Ram Chauhan; R/o Chhattisgarh Nagr, Tikarapara, Raipur (C.G.) Shrimati Santosh Bai Agrawa!, W/o Vishnu Dayai Agrawal, R/o Ashwani Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, The Nationa! Insurance Co. Ltd., G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) IVSIsceJlaneous Appeal Under Section 173 ofthe IVIotor VehldesAct1994 Present: Shri S.C. Verma, iearned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (1st May, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.05 10:18:25 +0530 This matter is listed today for orders on the appellant's defauit in not filjng an appropriate application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The appea! filed by the appeilant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation on 14-06-2007 is reported to be hopelessiy time-barred by as many as 235 days. 3. No application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed along with the appeal. In fact, no such application has been flled tlii date though a period of about one year has elapsed since fiiing of the appeaj and inspite of grant of opportunities by the Additional Registrar (Judicial) in that behalf. 4. In this view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the prayer of learned counsel for the appeliant for grant of further tlme for filing an application for condonation of deiay in filing the appeal. Hence, the prayer made by learned counsel for the appeilant in that behalf is rejected. 5. As the appeilant has miserabiy failed in showing any cause much less sufflcient cause for the inordinate delay of 235 days in filing the appeal, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the appeal as time-barred. 6. The appeai, therefore, is dismissed as time-barred. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge