HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 374/2007 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri DJIip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS r•\ RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS 1. Bhagwantin Bai, Wd/o Ram Kumar Sen Aged about 39 yrs. 2. Ku. Radhika, aged about 20 yrs. 3. Raju Ram,.S/o Ram Kumar Sen, aged about 75 yrs. 4. Mansha Ram, S/o Late Jait Ram, aged about 75 yrs. Appellant nos. 2 & 3 are represented by legal guardian mother Bhagawantin Bai. All Resident of Vill. Bhatbhera, P.S. Suhela, Distt. Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Thanu Ram, S/o Sukhau Nirmalkar, R/o Vill. Bhatbhera, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. Dilip Kumar, S/o Ayodhya Prasad Verma, R/o Vill. Sakalor, Post Hirami, Distt. Raipur (CG) 3. Iffco Tokiyo Generat Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Competent Authority, Sector-1 Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG) Present:- Shri P.M. Shrivas, counsel for the appellants. ORAL ORDER (Passed On 30th March, 2007) Heard on i.A. No. 1/2007 for condonation of delay. 2. In a case of death of a 19 year old young lad, resulting due to a motor vehicle accident, compensation of Rs.2,28,500/- was awarded by the M.A.C.T. Raipur vide award dated 29.4.2006 to the mother, brother and sisters ofthe deceased. 3. An appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1994 was fileci on 2.2.200X against the award passed by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tri^unal (F.T.C) Raipurdated 29/04/2006 after a delay of 172 days. The appeal is thus grossly barred by limitation. 4. The only ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay is that the appellants were under an impression that the appeal could be filed at any time. It was also mentioned that the appellants did not have sufficient funds. Learned counsel for the appellants sought permission to withdraw the application for condonation of delay praying for ^^t^ C.<T>\£^'^^^^ a liberty to file application pri, more con^incing grounds. However, such ^ Priya iiberty cannot be granted/to conceive some more convincing grounds. Prayer is rejected. 5. The contention that the appellants believed that the appeal could be filed at any time is no ground for condoning the delay. The appellants were represented by counsel before the M.A.C.T. Copy of the impugned award dated 29.4.2006 was applied for on 18.5.2006 and was received on 12.6.2006. However, thereafter the appellants went into a comptete slumber and the appeal was filed as late as on 02.02.2007. The affidavit filed by the appeilant No.1 is also not in a proper speaking format. It is not mentioned as to the contents of which para of the afRdavit is based on personal knowledge of the deponent and which para on information received. In my considered opinion, no satisfectory 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. 374/2007 is also dismissed as barred by limitetion. ,,K^—