. M'GCCQ1’+L i WW mm (W) Wt 200 g mam ammwn‘a; WWW Wmiwm $aw‘fcmm Hie}: caURT OF CHmATTISGARH AT BILasPvR Misc. Aapm (C) No.172/2006 singie Béach APPELLANT$ CLAIMANTS ,RESPGNDENT NON -APPLICANTS Present: Mr. S.C. Vanna, cc Mrs. z) Namichand Pahadia, Nawapara, V By Divisional Manager, .\Io.1. (1G,) Chitra Shr unsel for thf: appallzmts. on’ble Shri Dhitendra Mishra, J Smt. Birajha Bai, Wd/ o Sonu Ram Sahu, Ag€d about 88 yrs. Ku. Hcma, D/o Sonu Ram Sahu, agCd about 16 vrs. Lila Ram @ Raj, Sk: Sonu. Ram Sahu, aged about 14 yrs. Apyellant nos. 2 & 3 am rspx‘esented by legal guardian mother Smt. Birajha. Bai, A11 RIO ViJl. Nayapara (Rajim), Distt, Raipur (C.G.) IRSUE ‘ej Ram Yadav) {3/0 Gowardhan, Vaclav, R] o Torala, Post Bhuraka, KS. Nawagaon, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) rendra Kumar Pahadia‘ S/o R]o Sadat Rajml, Dim. lThe Om'ental Insumnce. C0. Ltd‘ Manda} the On‘ental Insurance Co. ptd. Jail Road, Raipm, Distt. Raipur Bazar Raipur (0G,) CO ivastava, counsel for respondent pmpaiiy No4 3/ Insuraime C< WW,W,W EEa:mamwLEa m@,%Wm£g ths impugned awaxd it 1S cbsewed that the Tribunal after aSSés3m'g the mconm of the dec‘ of tha dacaasad 5O wars a1111~app1ying miiltipliar of 13, ~ as compensation, which appears accordance with law. application for is rej60t5d. atands dismiassd as barred by awarduéd a sum of RS.2,56,000/ to be jusi 811d reasonable and i1. In the msmt, 0f delay M.C.P.No. condonation in Conmqumltly, flm app€al alsc limiiatio11 .' M GRPRJ :ased at Rs.2,000/ - per month, age has 1607;2006, this :mng appEal Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge @{QW FS/2 ~—— 2/2007 ——- 50 UUO. gum“.anEFm¢2mi?m.&Jla&zmmn.W 200$ amt m (13am!) 'mmm mm m mwm WW§WW $ 3mm 07.05.2007 Heard on-M.C.P,No. 1607/2006, application for condenation of delay iniih'ug this appeal as it 16 aame has bean filsd with a dday L1 of 84 days as per office note dated 24.82006. ”ix The grounds taken by t1 e appeilants for filing this appeal belatedly axe that the. appellan:s were not aware of the fact that Jaele 1s ahV lmmation loi fung this appealiaiid did not possess suffiCient fund to Initiate legal prbceedings after passing of the impugned award. The reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay cahnot be considered to be a ground much less sufficient ground for condoning the delay Even otherwise, from perusal of