@»“"-‘*;$“..., §m§59 Bensh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A. (C) No. 0&0 /2006 APPELLANT : / CLAIMENT /Mukadar An, S/o Haidar An, Aged about 19 yrs., R/o Momin Para, Near of Masjid, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENIg: /1. Santosh Kumar Sinha, S/o Rambharosa )ION—APPLICANTS Sinha, Magarload, R/o Village Distt. Dhamatari Belardona, (C.G.), P.S. Presént address Milan Chowk, Sanjay Nagar,,Raipur ‘ 7 Divisional Forest Officer, Narth Raipur Divisionai, Raipur (C.G.) / us Agpeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1994 “ :;w‘::uv 92% i: .: Miscellaneo t!» g. Shn’ S.C. Vanna, Advocafe for the z N011: anpszu‘s fer fhe mspQMsnts. UKUER A” Bhirend ra Iviishm, 5. Heard on M. (CJP. ‘isional Forest Officer, Notth Raipur Division, bur (CG) ' iSHR x i fA ppeiiant. ’ i‘ SB: HON’BLE SHR'! DHREE\®K 11-5.2007) No. 1530/2096 application fof condonation of delay in Iiiimg the appeai as the installt appeal has been flied with a deiay The reason assigned appeal with delay is that ti fact that there is ahy limit learnt about the law of hm his counsel. 3f 150 days. by the appellant for filing the 1e appellaht was not aware of the ation for filing the appeal and he ltation only when he contacted to gt \ am amm WWW fsQ3m a 311Wm E i Misc. A9 )eal ' " No. 3%!2006 A??? 'ANT Mulxnclar Ali, Sx'o. Haidar Ali, aged about 19 I yggm: R/g. Rigmm Darm’ near khqjid, D Q ATM Chowk, Raipur (ca) Versus ‘ S 1V :I l Sartosli KumarSinlia; S/o. Rambharosa Sinha, . Rafe. vi age Belardona, RS. Magarload, Distt. Bhmntan (C.G.) present address Milan Chewk, j Sanjay Nagar, Raipm‘ XInHC—v78 mW “my. MVa\R CUNt» 111 $qo/zooe 200 mm (W3) W$Wlfaw WWW WW wW Emamm $Wm The reason assigned for fmng the appeai balatedlv cannot be termed to be suffwient. EVen other wise, from perusal of paras 14 and 15 of the impugned award, it is evident that the claimant has faiied to prove that he was removed from his service on account ofthe iniuries sustained by him in the accident in question by ieading cogent evidence and restricted the award onlV to the extent of loss suffered bv the claimant due to the injuries sustained by him in the said acoldent and awarded a sum of Rs. ‘2’2,0G0/— as compensation which appears to be just and proper. The anneal is dismssed as barred bv limitation as aiso on merit. ' ,/ Sd/‘ // Dhirendra Mishra Judge