yiGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'bie Shrl Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Cc; Miscellaneous ADDeal,No.842 of Apoeilant Owner Resoondents 3. 4. Chhabilal Pandey, S/o Girdhari Lal Pandey, Aged about 70 years, R/o village Radhapur, P.0. Amaldiha, Tehsil-Dhabra, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versus Ramlal Rathiya, S/o Bandi Rathiya, Aged about 42 yeare, Caste-Kawar. Smt. Sukmet Rathiya, W/o Ramlal Rathi^. agsd about 37 years. Both are residents of village-Barli^, Tehsil/Dist.Ragarh (C.G.) Ciaimants Saroj Sahu, S/o Hariram Sahu, aged abciyt 22 years, Occupation-Ch-ivsr, R/o village- Barliya, P.0. Urdana, The/Dist. Raigarh. DMsiona! Manager, New India insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHiCLES ACT. 1388 Shri H.S.Ahluwal^counsel for the appellant. (Passed on 08.08.2008) Heard on I.A.No.2 for condonation of delay of 67 days in fiiing this appeal. 2. This appeal is by the owner. The grounds mentioned the applicatton for condonation ofdelay are mentioned as under: ^ "3. TTiat the son of the appellant could not understand the instructfon of the counsei because son of the appeilant was under impression that because before the Tribunal, statement on oath, ofShri Keshri Kishore Pandey' has been recorded on behalf of his father i.e. under appellant's power of attorney, so he can file the appeal and coukj sign the Vakalatnama on . behalfofhisfather. _-—--- '^y"""..-,^' '"•'•••SssasS^ I- 4. That this was the communication gap between the counsel and son of the appeltant in whfch the son of the appellant was under impression that the appeal woukl have been fited within the limitatton whereas the present counsel was awaiting fbr arrival of She appeltant along with his son to his office to sgn the vakalatnama. 5. Tliat due to the communication gap whfch has been created between the son of the appeilant and the counsel, the appeal could not filed within the limitatton, hence delay." 3. In my considered opinion, the grounds mentioned above do not constitute a valid ground for condonation ofdelay in view ofthe fact that the appellant was duly represented by the counsel and was contesting before the Tribunal and had also obtained the certified copy ofthe order soon after the impugned award was passed. 4. I .A.No.2 for condonation of delay in filing this appeal is dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. DilipRaosahebDeshmukh Cv^- \.