CM No.32447-CII of 2010 in/and FAO No.7367 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:26.04.2011 Jai Parkash & anr. ....appellants Versus Diwan Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUAMR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is claimants' appeal challenging the impugned Award dated 08.01.2009 on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. Along with the appeal, an application has been filed for condonation of delay of 478 days in filing this appeal. Para No.2 of the said application which is supported by an affidavit of the appellant reads thus: “That it is submitted the above said appeal was filed within time but the above said appeal was not listed and actually the case was given to Mr.Ahlawat through his clerk and it was told by the clerk to the counsel of Mr.Ahlawat that case has been admitted and when it will be listed it will be told to the appellants but now the above said counsel has been expired and it was checked from his clerk then he told that it is not in his knowledge because he has left the job from the above said counsel after his death and he is not having any knowledge and CM No.32447-CII of 2010 in/and FAO No.7367 of 2010(O & M) 2 even not having any record and due to this reason it was checked from the Registry Branch many times but the record of the instant appeal was not found. Otherwise, lastly in the month of July 2010, it was checked through computer but in spite of that the instant appeal was not traced out otherwise the instant appeal is enhancement of the award on account of death and in view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case the delay in filing the appeal was due to the reason mentioned above and even otherwise the appellants are seeking the modification of the award and in view of the Motor Vehicle Act. The above act has been made for beneficiary for the claimants who were dependent upon the deceased. So, in view of the above said facts the delay of 478 days may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.” However, the aforesaid averment made in this application is contrary to the record of the case. This appeal has been filed for the first time before this Court on 30.07.2010, whereas the Award of the Tribunal was passed on 08.01.2009. There is nothing on record to suggest that this appeal was initially filed within limitation as stated in the application. The plea taken is false. For the reason aforesaid, I find no merit in this application to condone the delay. Prayer for condoning the delay is rejected. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed as time barred. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 26.04.2011 neenu