3^5T ^1<41<7>^, ^Tfi'M^Ko, [sl^l^y \^. ^l^dl tb^leb •^ 200 3?T^?T ^^K (^\^^ ) 3?n^r^RTR[<lt{ch ^T^TT^T $CTW '^RTT^R ^rit<T 3^1^r h<I©HCOURT OF CMh M.A. [cl tslo.10 of 2006 APPELLANT Claimant Vi Vs RESPONDENTS Non-applicants AAr. S.C. Verma, Adv. for the appellc^t None for respondent No.l Mr. V. Rathore, Adv. on behalf of Mr|. AAr. 5.5. Rcyput, Adv. for responden-| ORAll (2 Per Dhirendro AAishroL J Heard on M.C.P. No.1347/2006 the appeal has been preferred wit| dated 5.4.2006. chl^lf<n<J1r1 TW^ ^ f^3t <p3l^i< ^ ^rRpr 3?i^i ^TTISeARHATDILASPUR- Kcjmlesh Kumar Sahu, S/o InokrQm Sahu, age 19 years, R/o [lage Jarouda, Posf Farfaud/ P.S. ^ang, Tah. & bistt. Raipur (C.©.) !l. Santosh Kumar Sahu/S/o Sonu Ram Sahu. 2. Rup Ram Sahu, S/o Budhu Rom Scrfiu. Both are residents of Village Jfliraud, P.5. Aran9, Tah. <& Dist. Raipur (C.©.) 3. Bcycy Allianz ©eneral Insurance Co. Ltd. In front of RqjkumQr College, Raipur, Thr. &ivisional Mcinciger. M.K. Bhoduri/ Adv. for respondent No.2 No.2. O R & E R 5.2007) >, application for condonation of deloy, as a delay of 67 dcys, as per office note GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50,000. XI-HC-78 ^TT^T^rf^t^ cTSTT^niST^TT^) ^-r ^ Rosh4 /- 3^T?2nqT^RT^ ^Tfl^^Ko, [cjdiy^ ^ +11*1C<11 9h*1|ch ^ 200 ^TM^ch (*ic<t^c<<^'t:T) ^cTTW^W^TT^T "z- The reasons assigned that the appellant WQS undei filin9 the appeal. This groui sufficient. Even otherwise, f that though there is evider minor fracture of left humo appellont before the tribun^ some rod was fixed in his sign of any operQtional injur has oiso not filed any bill circumstances, the tribunai fracture has awarded a sum In view of the abov< impugned award passed by| substance is liabte to be ^^TfoN^T HTO^JY ^'te^" ^T^K ^3Tf^q'3:TT^r for filing this appeaJ with a delay of 67 days is a wrong impression that there was no limit for ^d assi9ned for filing the appeal belatedly is not :^om perusal of the impugned award it is observed r|ice availQble on record that appellant suffered ^rous bone, however, no evidence was JQid by the to show that he underwent some operation or s^oulder ofter operation and in fact, there was no ^ present over the person of the appellant. He of expenses towards treatment and in these ^onsidering that the appeilant has suffered minor hf Rs.io.ooo/- I do not find any iilegality or infirmity in the the tribunai, the oppeal being devoid of any disr|iissed and it is hereby dismissed. D^ ^d4'^ra :twv P.T.O. V.;1-AV-..;'.:."^;<:,-.,.'1.,1<^