\^ «2 WGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR SlnaSe Bench : Hon?bjeShrlDJlU3Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appllcant/Appeiiant Non-appiicant No.3 Non-apMlcajit respondent No.1 Gjaliiiant Non-apDtlcant respondeiit No<2 Non-applicant No.1 Nors^ippiicant respoiident No,3 Nofi-applicant No.2 JVJ.C.C.No.18of2008 Orienta! Insurance Company .Limited through Divisionai Manager, Madina Building, Kachhari Chowk, Medical College Road, Raipur. Versys 1. G.V.V.S.N.Raju, S/o J. Ramaraju, aged 27 years, R/o Village Sanyasipara, Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Batbir Singh Git! S/o Sardar Bachan Singh, R/o Mahavir Goushala, K. K. Road, Raipur. Official Address:- C/o Ralpur Bangal Road Lines, Tatlbandh, Raipur. 3. Nachhar Singh, S/o Santok Singh, R/o Pandaritarai, Raipur \ AppSicatson for restoration oflVliscellarseous Appeal No.9S2f1^8- PlBsent : ~ ' - Shri S.R,J. Jaiswat, counsel for the applicant ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 19th day of January, 2009) This M.C.C. was heard finallytoday. (2) The present M.C.C. is in respect of an order dated 22-04-2008 passed in Miscellaneous Appeai No.952/1998 whereby the miscsltaneous appea! preferred by the appellant/insurer against the award dated 27-04-1998 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunal, Raipur in Ciaim Case No.85/96 was dismissed In default ofthe appeliant. An applicatjon (I.A.No.1) for condonation of delay of 236 days iri fiting the M.C.C. has atso been filed by the appiicant. Rsason oientioned in the appiication is that on 22-04-2008 when the matter was ilsted, counsei appearing for the appeiiant couid not trace out the case in the daity cause list pubiished by the High Court and due to the sald mistake, the —2-- \^ .G counsel did not appear. Shri S. R. J. Jaiswal, learned counse! for the applteant admitslhat the name of the counsei Shri H. S. Patel was mentioned in the cause Sist While arguing on the present M.C.C., learned counsel forthe appiicant took a different stand that in fact, hls clerk could not trace out the case in time, and therefore, counse! did not appear. Ironically, instead of being supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the appeiianVinsurer, application for condonation of delay in filing the M.C.C. is supported by an affidavit of the Senior Divisional Manager of the appeliant/insurer vvho states on oath that the contents of the applicatlon are true and correct as per records of the case availabie in the office. it thus appears that the dismissal of M.A.No.952/1998 on 22-04-2008 was within the toiowiedge ofthe insurance company atso. (3) Be that as It may, there is no sufRcient ground for preferring this M.C.C. after an inordinate delay of 236 days. Since no sufficient cause is shown in the appijcation foroondonation of deiay in fliing the M.C.C., the applioation (i.A.No.1) is dlsmissed, As a result, theM.CC. is aiso dismissed as barred by time. Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tumane \ ^