/ $3 WWV‘L}€ fwf gang (3 Ci 4 W i {U 4DJD 1W WW r] wpw W %‘0/!~€/ ‘/LF/0 WM \f‘gf/&]V€f0 nubQ/lwj W5 /] W w J Ww M $130 MWDL gxlyaggvo @WH’f0 Mcm27Lo<gi ,Lvvw (WW W5 W 299%?0 {awgz’ m? @n/ /y wLf) wy/MH Ay ya/w/ éé/a};/'cw/W,U¢AW l W? Vijaitmm *HP WM ‘Wym ywo %!S5W im? am V WW iazéakwvhw WWmmg ' wmw m 1&m: N ? ¥ Ww 'W?wwm @ # WWW) a H E .y 33W é MWMQ Wgimgkm WWW U 8LOH'IX % w W 7 jooz Ea WW,W,W W WM..N0.33 m6 200 mm(W), mmm W$§§W E SUNIL KUMAR SINHAI B: HON’BLE $HRI JU 1 3.02.2008 This is the office refer nce on PUD dated 28.7.2006 written by the 9‘“ Additional Motor Acciden Claims Tribunal (FTC) Durg. By the said PUD, the Ciaitns Tribunal has prayed for extension of time to dispose of the Claim ase No. 164/2006 (old No.58i97). it appears that while deciding the Civil Revision No.1560/99, an order was passed by th Court on 1.7.2005 for completing the proceedings of the claim c se as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from th date of receipt of copy of the order dated 1.7.2005. When the claim case was not disposed of in time, the aforesaid application was s ttor extension. On the last date of hearing i.e. 5.2.2007, an explanation was called from Mr. V.N. Pa dey, the then Presiding Officer, Second Additional Motor Accident ims Tribunal as to why unnecessary deiay was caused in this matter n giecting the order passed by the High Court. Shri V.N. Pandey ha submitted his explanation dated 14.2.2007, in which he has mentioned bout his long illness and has submitted that due to bona’ride mistake, h could not notice the order passed by the High Court, therefore, duri g his regime, he could not take steps to dispose of the claim petitio as per the direction of the High Court. He has submitted that the co nsel appearing for the parties also did not brought it in his notice, ther fore, the matter remained unattended in his m—V //W \ regime and the mistake wa committed. and circumstances of the case and the r} 1, VXXplanation submitted by S ri V.N. Pandey, l do not feel it necessary to Considering the fac S STI i r a WW,W,W take further steps as far as 1on-compliance of the order is comerned. However, Mr. Pendey is a ised to be careful in future. The matter regarding non-compiiance is ropped. It is reported that the iaim case has aiready been disposed of by the concerned Tribunal on722 12.2006. In View of the abov , time granted by this Court earlier is extended upto 22 12 2006 The matter stands tina y disposed of This order be brought to the notice of Mr V K Pandey Sdl— Sunil Kumar Sinh‘e Judge ' M , / a [Lino WM” 3mm (1mm) am§qq§ ~ WWW w2_ mmawm wranm