(^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 372/2007 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. APPELLANT CLAIMANT V. RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS Yogesh Kumar, S/o Tekeshv^r Sahu, Aged about 20 yrs., R/o Mudpar, P.0. Sandi Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG), Present address Urala, P.S. Uraia Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Mohammad Naseem Khan, S/o Mohammad tshmile, R/o Trimurti Nagar Block, Janta Type-A-7, P.S. Ganj, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. Sushil Kumar, S/o Ghanshyam Singh Banchhor, R/o Ranitarai, P.S. Ranitarai Distt. Durg (CG) 3. The Orientel Insurance Co. Ltd., Through-Divisional Manager, Jail Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Present:- Shri P.M. Shrivas, counsei for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed On 30th March, 2007) Heard on i.A. No. 1/2007 for condonation of delay. .i: 2. An appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1994 has been filed againstthe award passed bythe 11th Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal (F.T.C) Raipur vide judgment ctated 21/07/2006. In a case of permanent disability suffered by the appeltant due to a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 29.4.2003, compensation of Rs.32,000/- was awarded by the learned M.A.C.T., Raipur. The appellant was represented by counsel and applied for a certified copy of the award on 26.8.2006 and obtained copy on 21.9.2006. However, the appeal was preferred on 19,2.2007. Thus, the appeal is filed after a delay of 96 days and is barred by limtetion. "^ 3. The only ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay is that the appeltants were under an impression that the appeal could be fited at any time. Jt was also mentioned that the appeliants did not have sufficient funds. Learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the application for Gondonation of delay praying for a iiberiy to file application on more convincing grounds, However, such iiberty cannot be granted to concjeive some more convincing grounds. Prayer is rejected. 4. The contention that the appellant believed that the appeal coutd be filed at any time is no ground for condoning the delay. The appeltant was represented by counsel before the M.A.C.T. Copy of the impugned award dated 21.07.2006 was applied for on 26.08.2W6 and was received on 21.9.20C®. However, thereafter the appellant went into a complete slumber and the appeal was filed as late as on 19.02.2007. The affldavit fiied by the appellant is also not in a proper speaking format. It is not mentioned as to the contents of which para of the affidavit is based on personal knowledge of the deponent and whtch para on information received. In my considered opinion, no satisfactory cause has been assigned for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. Accordingly, i.A. No. 1/2007 for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, M.A.C. No. 372/2007 is also dismissed as barred by limitation. ^,^—