y ^f HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Appellant Defendant No.3 Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. IVI.A.C.No.1149 of2008 The Qriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office - 01, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur Versus Respondent No.1 Claimant Respondent No.2 Defendant No.1 Respondent No.3 DefendantNo.2 1. Bhann Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Shri Bisali Ram Sahu, resident of village Tirri, Tah. Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari presently R?o Village Palaud, Tah. Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. Rajesh @ Munni Gupta, aged not known to the appellant, S/o Shri Ramkripal Giipta, resident of Nehru Nagar, Kalibadi, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) (Dnyer) 3. Ramchandra Gaikwad, son of Dikhilal Gaikwad, resident of - Maana Basti, Raipur, Tahsil and Distt.Raipur (CG) (Owner) AepeaL under^ectjonj73 pf the Motoj: Vehicles Act, 1988 Present: Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26.08.2008) Heard on I.A.No.2 for taking document i.e. certified copy of order passed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act on record. 2. I.A.No.2 is allowed and the document is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that statutory deposit, as required by the proviso to Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been made. 4. Heard on I.A.No.1 for condonation ofdelay in filing the appeal. ll 'Z- 5. This is an appeal by the insurer. The only ground mentioned in the application is as under: "3. That there is reasonable delay in filing the present appeal, as the same has been caused in obtaining official permission, hence this application." 6. A perusal of the certified copy of the impugned award dated 19.03.2008 shows that copy of the award was delivered to the appellant/insurer on the same date. The appellant being an insurance company, it was incumbent on the appellant to give specific details of the steps taken for obteining official permission. The ground urged by the appellant/insurer for condonation of delay is as vague as it could be and it cannot be ascertained therefrom whether the appellant/insurer was prevented by sufRcient cause in filing the appeal within limitation. Since nosufficientcauseisshown,I.A.No.01 for condonation ofdelay is dismissed. As a result, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. i~=--ggjr lDiUP^OS^estuBU Judge