APPELLANT Ciaimant Versus RE$PQNDENTS: 1. Ku. Nirasha Bai, Aged about 12 years S/o Late Keshavram Chandravanshi, R/o Gatatoia, PoS’t Tappa, PS Dongargacn, District —- Rajnandgaon’ (CG) Through : Natural Guardian Uncle Mahesh Kumar Chandravanshi, son of late Derharam, aged about 40 years, resident of Gatatoia, Post Tapa, PS Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Ashok Kumar, S/o Dukhuram Yadav, Aged about 4O years, resident of Bamieshwri Ward Dongargarh, PS Dongargarh‘ District — Rajnandgaon (CG) Mr Venkatraman, Slo Neelamvaiam, resident of Qtr. No.LB Sector —- 5 Street No.31, Bhitai Nagar, District — Durg (CG) The New india insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (CG) Miscettaneous Aggeal U/S ‘l?3 of the Metor Vehicte Act, 1988 Present: Shri Rakesh Sahu, teamed counset for the appeiiant. Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondents No. 2 and 3 though served: co eaoea (11th May, 2009) of the Court was passed by The following order -wrts C-J- m HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVESION BENCH CORAM: HON’LE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc Nam of mm By allowing l.A.No.2885/2006, the appeHant is granted exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned award. 2. Learned counsei for the parties are heard on M.C.P.No.1587/2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 3. This appeal'has been filed by the appellant in the year 2006 for enhancement of the compensation awardedby the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.08.2003, passed in Claim Case No.257/2002. Thus, the appeal is barred by time by almost three years. 4. ln the application filed for condonation of the delay no sufficient ground has been shown for the inordinate delay of three years. ln fact, the ground taken in the application that the appellant was not knowing as to whether an appeal would tie against the award is not at all convincing as the appeilant was represented before the Tribunai by a counsel. 5. We, therefore, do not find any ground for condonation of the inordinate delay of three years. 6. M.C.P.No.1567/2006, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. Consequentiy, the appeal also stands dismissed as time—barred. # ‘ a subbu sdi— , ha eunuKuma'Sm Judge Sd/- Chief Justice