(h^^ T HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Single BencJi : Hoji'bleShnDiltB Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Miscellaneous Appeal (C.KPR) No.355 of 2008 Afipeltant Sadanand Kaiwart, S/o Late Ciaimant VasudeV Kaiwart, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Raipura, Thana Sunder Nagar Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Respondents Non-Claimant versus 1. Umakant Pradhan, Occupation Vehiele Driver, R/o Gutf Automobiles, Padampur Road, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 2. Gonda! Khan, Owner pf the Maruti Van, R/o GujfAutomobjles Padampur Road, S'araipali, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional . Manager, Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Misceiianeoys Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri O.P.Yadav, counset for the appellant. ORAL ORD'ER (Passed on this 12th day of August, 2008) Shri O.P.Yadav, leamed cdunsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the default as pointed out by the Registry has been removed. (2) The appeai washeard on admission. . (3) The appeliant/claimant has preferred this appeal against the award dated 18-04-2007 passed by e Xlth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (henceforth 'the tribunal') in Claim 1 ! --2- Case No.79/2006, whereby the applicatlon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth 'the Act') was cfismissed on the ground that the appellant/claimant had miserabiy failed to prove that he had sustained any injury in the accident. Leamed counsel for the appellantfclaimant did not dispute that the appellant/claimant did not file any documents before the tribunat to prove that he had sustained any injury in the accident. It was also not disputed that the appellant/claimant neither examined the treating doctor nor called for the records from the concerned hospitals. Before the tribunal, the ciaimant had stated that all the documents evidencing treatment had been lost. This appeal has been flled 181 days after the expiry of the period of limitation. The sole ground mentioned in the appiication is that the applicant/claimant continues to take treatment and is unable to move and taking bed rest and is, therefore, facing toughest time of his life. However, on being asked, iearned counsei for the appellant/claimant submitted that the appellant/claimant is not inlsi position to file any document to substantiate the so!e ground taken' |n the application for condonation of de!ay in filing this appeal. tn this view of the matter, nosatisfactory reason has been assigned for thej inordinate delay in filing thisappeat. Learned counsel for the appeliant/claimant alsodid not raise any serious question of taw or fact in this appeal. Inthis view ofthe matter, the application for condonatiOrt of delay filed on 07-08-2008 is dismissed. As a consequence, the appea! is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Sdf- . ,, DilipRaosaheb Deshmukh Judge