s®a /-.. Resoondents Claimant HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Singie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.A.CNo. 992 of 2008 Appellant : Chakradhar Patel, S/o Tikatam Patel Qi/ehicie Owner), aged about 48 years, R/o Village Tapranga, Poiice Station-Tamnar, Tahsil and District Raigarh (CG) Versus 1. Mu. Suman Agrawal, W/o Manoj Agrawal, aged about 35 years, Occupation - Housewife, R/o Dhaurabhata, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG) 2. Mahendra Purale @ Mahendro Bhuihar S/o Samaru, aged about (as per iicense 34 years), Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Girsima Police Station Himgir, District Sundargarh (Orissa) (As per license Kishan Jaiswal, Viliage Loing, District- Raigarh (CG) 3. Ramdas, S/o Vyaparai Kachhawaha, aged about 40 years, R/o Bade Rampur, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG) Memorandym ofaopeal underSection 173oftheMotorVehicles Act, 1988. Present: Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Non-apDiicanf No.1 Non-appiicant No.3 •'" •? (Passed on 22.07.2008) The appeliant is aggrieved by an award dated 30.11.2(X)7 passed bythe IV' Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in claims case No.26/2007, whereby in a death case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,75.000/-. (2) Heard on t.A. No.1 for condonation of delay of 140 days in fiiing this appeal. •V \ ^^<f^ -^^. Priya •V (3) The soleground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in the application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal is that the appellant came to know about passing of the award when the warrant of execution issued by the Tribunal was served on him. So far as the ground mentioned by the appellant in para 4 of the application (I.A. No.1) is concerned, learned counsel stated that it relates to the period preceding to the culmination of the proceedings before the Tribunal. (4) Learned counsei for the appellant did not dispute that the appellant had contested the claim before the Tribunal and was also represented bycounsel. (5) No sufficient ground for condonation of delay is seen. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 is dismissed. As a consegyence thereof, the ^ar appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge /• \ r