HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH SPUR SinaleBench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Miscellaneous Aopeal (C.l No^OS of 2007 Apoellant Anand Travels through Pratosh Kumar Gupta, S/o Namnath Gupta, Aged about 43 years, R/o Lolld, P.S. & Tahsil - Pratappur, Kstt. Surguja (CG) versus Resoondents 1. Chulluram, S/o Bhoolan Ram, aged about 67 years, 2. Hulaso, W/o Chulluram, aged about 63years 3. Vijay, S/o Chulluram, aged about 22 years 4. Dhananjay, S/o Chulluram, aged about22ywre 5. Ramtel, S/o Chulluram, aged about18 yeare (All R/o Village Khunshi, P.S. Tahsil - Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (CG) 6. Chetram, S/o Teliaram, Occupatfon Driver, R/o Viltage Pratappur, P.S. & Tahsil - Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (CG) 7. Baisokhao Bai, Wd/o Bhlsham Singh through Shivmangal Singh, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Raisra, Post - Chandrameda, Tahsil - Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (CG) 8. The Orientat Insurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, The Oriental tnsurance Company Ltd., Branch Office — Ambikapur, Distt. Surguj'a (CG) Aopeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehictes Acfc 1988 Present: Ms.SharmilaSinghai.counselfortheappellanfc Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel for respondent No.8. No one appears for respondents No.1 to 7. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 22nd day of July, 2008) fi«s%> '% f 1 ys s 1, I, ^ —z.- Ms. Sharmila Singhai, leamed counsel for the appellantfowner submitted that the driver of the offending vehtele, i.e., respondentNo.6, Chetram has died and desp'rte best effoite the le^il representatlves could not be brought on record. (2) Heard on I.A.No.1, an appticatton for condonsrtfon of delay in filing this appeal. (3) Brief facts are that in Claim Case No.87/2002 the Vlth Addttionsrf Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (henceforth "ttie tribunal') passed an ex parte award against the appellant/owner on 09-02-2004. It was not disputed by iMrned counsel for the appellant/owner that Uie appellantfowner was duly served vnth a noUce <rf the applicatton Tw compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (haiceforth 'the Acf) anct was appearing before the tribunal till 21-09-2001 . It was also submitted that the appellant/owner had stopped appearing before the tribunal from 21-09-20)1 tiB passing ofthe award on 09-02-2004. (4) On 03-08-2004 an appllcation under Order 9 Rute 13 of the Cocle of Ciwl Procedure was filed by Uie owner for setting askte the ex parfe award dated 09-02-2004 passed by the tribunal in Claim Case No.87/2002. This application was dismissed on 31-08-2006 by the tribunal. On 22-12-2006, the present appeal Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.405/2007 was filed by the appellant/owner. After filing of the present appeal Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.405/2007 the appellanVowner also flled an appeal Miscetlaneous Appeal (C.) No.129/2007 against the order of rejection of his applteation under Order 9 Rule 13 of e Code of Civil Procedure passed by the tribunal. This Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) ><'\ No.129/2007 was dismissed on 07-12-2007. It is not disputed that before the tribunal Uie appellant/owner stopped appearing from 21-09- 2001 and took no steps against the ex parie award dated 09-02-2004 till 02-08-2004. No explanatfon is forthcoming for ttie inaction of the appellanf/ownerduring this inten'egnum. In this view of the matter, 1 am of the considered opinfon that the appellant/owner has failed to show any sufRcient cause Tor the delay in filing this appeal. (5) Ms. Sharmila Singhai, teamed counsel for the appeltant/owner placed reliance on N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krtshnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 and Sa/n/ft Security vs. SheelBai and ottwrs, AIR 2008 SC 1688. However, the case law cited by learned counsel for the appellant/owner is distinguishable because in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krtshnamurthy (supra), the appellant had engaged a counsel who had failed to inform the appellant about the ex parte decree. In thepresent case, the appellant had stopped appearing before the tribunal without any rhyme or reason from 21-09-2001 and even after passing of the award on 09-02-2004 took no steps till 03-08- 2004. In Salnlk Securtty vs. Sheel Bal and othws (supra), the facts constituting sufficient cause for condoning the delay in (iling ttie appeal have not been reported. (6) lnthjsviewofthematter,IANo.1,theapplJcationforcondonatk)n crf delay in filing the appeat stands dismissed. As a consequence thereof, Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.405/2007 is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sopd