^ O^^onBwuSt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - '"^^ OF 2011 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) APPELLANTS ^ ^ Mahendra Kumar @ Rakesh @ Tikesh Sahtu S/o Radheshyam Sahtu aged about 26 years, R/o-Village - Sankra, Police Station - Nagri, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (Non-applicant No. 1) ^/^/^ y..^ /'-^ [Driver of vehicle Tractor-Trolley C.G.05/G/0355 & 0356] bearing registration No. •^ ^ /^) RESPONDENTS r ^ ^ 3.. ^ Radheshyam Sahu, S/o Dhanauram Sahu, aged about 55 years, R/o-Village - Sankra, Police Station - Nagri, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (Non-applicant No. 2) [Registered owner of vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration no. C.G.05/G/0355 & 0356] VERSUS Smt. Aishwari Yadav, W/o Late Tukeshwar Yada\ aged about 25 years, Ku. Nandani Yadav D/o late Tukeshwar Yadav, aged about 04 years, Ku. Devika Yadav, D/o- late Tukeshwar Yadav, aged about 01 Years, [Respondent No. 2 and 3 being minor on behalfofthrough their legal guardian mother Smt. Aishwari Yadav RespondentNo. 1] (1 to 3 is CIaimants) A1I R/o - Village- Jadjada, Police Station- Gariyabandh, District - Raipur. (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Branch Office No. 1, Madina Manjil, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & Distnct - Raipur ( C.G.) (Non-applicant No. 3) [Insurer of vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration No. C.G.05/G/0355 & 0356] Appeal Valueat- Rs. 4,91,000/-/- MEMORANDUM QF APPEAL UNDER SECTIONI73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Bemg^g^rieyedltv-Af'-imi-"-^1—1- ^'_ fft HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIViSION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A.MNo. 759 of 2011 Appellants Respondents Vs Mahendra Kumar @ Rakesh @ Tikesh Sahtu and another Smt. Aishwari Yadav and others Present: Mr. Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 to 3, though served. Mr. Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No. 4. ORDER (Orall , (27th September, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard on IA No.01, application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal as the same has been preferred with a delay of 519 days, as per report of the stamp reporter. 2. The appellants have explained the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal in their application (IA No.01), in paras 4, 5 & 7, as under: "4. That the award passed on 24/08/2009, copy applied on 13/08/2010, copy ready on 27/08/2010 and received on 27/08/2010 hence there is 519 days delay in filing the appeal. 5. That, the appellants are helpless, poor & laymen person and after passing the award by the learned Court below, they did not understand that who are liable to pay the compensation. Further, the appellants submitted that after passing the award, they were facing the financial problem due which they could not mandatory deposit before the learned claim tribunal. It is also submitted that the appellants are not highly educated due which they have no knowledge about the ^s^""^^.. ,^:"^ ""iK%.. ^'^.....^^^s^, ^ :iyMi;lit^ 't' ^s^'^s', ? 2. ^^..y •^^ ^-^' period of limitation for filing the appeal and legal proceedings, therefore, they could not file the appeal before this Hon'ble Court and hence this mistake has been committed by the appellant without any malafide intention and the delay is not caused intentionally and deliberately. 7. That, it is submitted that the appellants are not intentionally or deliberately to delay in filing the appeal, hence the delay of 519 days is bonafide one and due to above said reasons." 3. The explanation offered by the appellants that they had no knowledge about the period of limitation for filing appeal and the legal proceedings, is not satisfactory. Besides this, owner of the tractor giving further explanation that they were facing financial problems, is also not believable. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay of 519 days in filing the appeal and the same is not liable to be condoned. Accordingly, the application (IA No.01) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as time barred. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge k'