HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DiVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRS T.P. SHARMA, J. APPELLANTS CLAIMENTS M.A.C (PR) No. 1807of2007 W^L)6^^/&b 1. Geeta Bai Lata Bai Verma Wd/o Uma Shankar Verma, Aged about 33 yrs, 2. Sandeep S/o Umashankar Verma, agedabout 13yrs. 3. Laxmikant S/o Umashankar Verma, agedabout10yrs. 4. Magin Bai Wd/o R.C. Verma, aged about 65.yrs. Appeilant no. 2 & 3 are represented by legal guardian Mother Geeta Bai Verma. Ait R/o P.0. Charoda, Dist. - Raipur, C.G.) ^! RESPONDENTS: 1 NON-APPLSCANTS 3. Versus Ganpat Ram Lodhi S/o Udho Singh Lodhi, R/o 122, Shankar Nagar, Raipur C.G., present address, through-Smt Durmtia Bharati W/o Lekha Ram Bharati, R/o Chandela Nagar, ring road, Bilaspur, Dist - Bilaspur, C.G. Smt. Durmila Bharati W/o Lekha Ram Bharati, R/o Chandeia Nagar, ring road, Bilaspur, Dist - BJIaspur,C.G. The United India insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kutehhery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) MisceISaneous Appeal Under Sectlon 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1994 BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.04 11:08:15 +0530 e) Present: Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (2na May, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This matter is listed today for orders on the appellants' default in not filing an appropriate application for condonation of deiay in filing the appeal. 2. The appeal flled by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation on 21-06-2007 is reported to be time-barred by as many as 155 days. 3. No appiicatlon for condonation of deiay in filing the appeal was filed along with the appeat. In fact, no such application has been filed till date though a period of about one year has elapsed since filing of the appeal and inspite of grant of opportunities by the Additiona! Registrar (Judiciai) in that behalf. 4. (n this view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the prayer of learned counset for the appellants for grant of further time for filing an application for condonation of delay in flling the appeai. Hence, the prayer made by iearned counsel for the appeliants in that behalf is rejected. 5. As the appellants have miserably failed in showing any cause much less sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the appeal as time- barred. 6. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed as time-barred. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- T.P. Shamia Judge ^