HIGKCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SinaleBench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-Claimants Misc. Appeal (C) No.548 of 2007 Smt. Durgesh Nandani Sahu, W/o Ashwani Kumar Sahu, aged about 35 years, Occupation - Principal in Navyug Vidhyalaya, Hirapur, R/o - Veer Savarkar Nagar, Hirapur, District - Raipur (C.G.) versus 1. Pankaj Das @ Pikku, S/o Natwarlal, aged about 21 years, Occupation - Vehicle Driver, R/o Pandri, District Raipur(C.G.) 2. Vimal Kumar Agrawal, S/o Onkarmal Agrawal, aged about 50 years, Occupation - Director af Vimal Trading Company, R/o - Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Memorandum ofappeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel forthe appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 19th September, 2008) Heard on I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. 2. The ap'plication is filed on two grounds. Firstly the appellant was taking treatment ^nd secondly she had no knowledge of the period of limitation. So far as the first ground is concerned, no document is filed to substantiate that the^ppellant was taking treatment ever after passing of the award. Paragraph 4 of the application shows that copy of the award y-<"\ fS? ^—r Anjani /1 was delivered to the appellant on the same date i.e. 20.09.2006. It is also not in dispute in this appeal that the appellanVclaimant was represented by counsel in the Tribunal. The appellant did not file any document to show that she had sustained permanent disability due to the accident. Medical evidence was also not adduced by the appellanVclaimant before the Tribunal. In this view of the matter it also does not appear that the appellant/claimaht has an arguable case. 3. Thus, there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing the application. I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. As a result, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge '.\