HieH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Bench: Hon’bte shriomp Raosaheb ~ ~ M M.A. No.496l2004 Single Present. Shri Manej‘Paranjpe. Shri Abh Company. Aged about 27 years, ‘ Distt. R/o Village siddhi and (MR) Post Chattangi, Aggal under Section 173 oi Motor which Act ishek in counse! a, counsel for the for appelhnt/Owner. the Non-applicant Nm2ilnsurance DRAORR (Passed on 7‘“ August. 2007) Amllant Ram Owuer Awamr Agrawal Slo Shri Kishan Agrawal Aged about 45 yeals R/o Near Banaras Chowk. jesh Restaurant Ambilapur, Distt. Surguja m Res ndents 1. (CG) Versus Ramjan S/o. Lal Mohammad about 4O years, Rio Villaga Vijay Nagar. P.S. Surguia Ramanujganj, Tahsll Pal, Dlslt. 2. (CG) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ambikapur, Surguja (CG) 3. Santosh (Respondent/Non-appllcant) District Consumer Dispute RedreSsal Forum, Surguja as case Nam/2003 which Was dismissed on 12.3.2004. Thereafter, on 12.4.2004, this miscellaneous appeal Was tiled. sub-clause (1) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. the second proviso to (4) ’/1, i ause for the enormous delay of award dated 24-10~2001 till proceedings before the consumer forum on 26—06-2003. M was aiso contended that the appeilant/owner had not tiled the amdavit of his counsel who had i" advised him to litigate before the consumer forum. (5) Having considered the rival submissions. i am of the considered opinion that there is no sufhcient expianation for the inordinate deiay in filing i this appeal. The fact that the appellant/owner did not prefer an appeal till ‘‘\ 26-05-2003 goes to show that perhaps on legai advice mat preferring a Misceilaneous Appeal would be hopeiessly barred by limitation and therefore he should take a chance before the consumer forum. that he had initiated proceedings at a very late stage on 26-05-2003 before the consumer forum. The appellant/owner did not frie the affidavit of the advocate on whose advice I he did not prefer any appeal in the period before 26-05-2003 and irritated proceedings before the consumer forum on 26—05-2006. (6) ln this manner, the application under section 5 of the Limihtion Act lacks bonahdes. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellantfowner is thus clearly disdnguishabie and does not heip the appeilant in any manner. (7) ln the result, this appeal being hopelessly barred by limitation, he application M.(C.)P.No.658/2004 for condonation of delay isdismissed and as a resuit, the appeal also stands dismissed being barred by limitation. «s a» n ewe—V. w (6) ln view of the above, l.A.No.02 for dispensing with the service to _ . respondent No.3 also stands disposed of, i Sd/_ r é Duip Rapsaheb Deshmrxkh: g Judge i Pm » J" **\\