HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench : l-ion’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 686 of 2006 Memorandum of Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri A.L. Singraul, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the respondent No.3 \ M ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8m of August 2008) , Heard on M.C.P.No.2374!2006 for condonation of delay of 126 clays in filing this appeal. Appellants 1. Smt. Sulochana Bai, Wdlo Sushil Claimants Kumar $harma. Aged about 32 yrs. 2. Ku. Neha, Dlo Sushil Kumar Sharma, aged about 11 yrs. 3, Ku. Megha, Dlo Sushi! Kumar Sharma, aged about 7 yrs. 4. Ku. Riya, Dio Sushi! Kumar Sharma, aged abeut 5 yrs. 5. Ku. Priya, Dlo Sushil Kumar Shanna, Aged about 5 yrs. 6. Pitambar Sharma, Sic Kanwardeep Sharma, aged about 62 yrs. 7. Saraswati Bai, W/o Pitambar éharma, aged about 58 yrs. Appellants No.2,3,4 & 5 are represented by legal guardian mather Smt. Sulochana Bai, Ali resident 6f Near Shiv Mandir, Barhaipara, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) versus Respondents 1. Khem Lal Verma, 3/0 Bhagirathi Verma. Nan-Applicants Through Harwinder Singh, Slo Jasawant Singh, R/o Katortalab, Raipur (Near Super Electronic), P.S. Telibandha, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Harwinder singh. Sfo Jasawant Singh, R/o Katorataiab, Raipur, (near Super Electronic), P.S. Telibandha, Tah. & Distt. Raipur. 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., Board No.2, Sai Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The ground mentioned in ihis appeal is that the appellant was under the impression that appeai may be filed at any time. i am of the considered opinion that it does not constitute any valid ground for condonation of delay. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,80,000f— in case of death of Sushil Kumar Verma. aged 35 years. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has also not been able to satisfy the Court that the impugned award suffers from any perversity or that the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable compensation. ln that view of the matter, M.C.P.No.2374i2006 for condonation of delay of 126 days in filing this appeal is dismissed. As a consequence, this appeal is aiso dismissed as barred by iimitation. Sd-/ ‘ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge i