fe' • INTHEmGBCOlJRT^OF.JUIMCS'ATlJRE^A'Ea?^^^^; M.G.G..NO; OF 2006 APPLIGANT J- ;KESPGffiW)EN1'S'.^ rt»' The Oriental | InsuTanee Company Ltd, thrcmgU Dayalband,BUaspur(Chhattisgarh) ^VerSus ' I . Bhagwaadas, i S/o , Khenichaiid Bhojwani,age(l^bout57years,R/o BiilM, TaB. ^itha, Distt BilasE^ (Ghllattisgarh) ; 2. .Mancg ^, Kimiar^^ ^ ^'MsS^e^yTx^S^&^^M^s'm'isE' Jeep ^.,>]\% 3007, ^^^^ SaTkanda^Bilaspur(Gliiiattisgarh). 3; Bajrang, Son of not kirown (dnyer JjeepNo. MIL^07),thr<mgKM ; tKnmar" .Agrawal, S/o^^:Mahaveer PrSsad ;iAgra^l, N Sari'cahda^ BilaSpur (Ehllattisgarhj) •APPLIGA^ION''EQRRESWBiMISG^.OE,MISG.:;iAP^AL^O ^^ ^^ •••'.^'"-)l'* «•<T.--' ^••^ .757:.OF;l'99S,'I'QlillMB<3J3SrALl:NtJ3V^^ XI-HC-78 ^i^T^'rf^5'' OTT Stl^T Sh*il<ti -^i' 3^''^i'I<ict'y,®Tf1«'ls,Ric'iwy ^,c-c. r^c. "5-^^ K. tTTtTOI Sb*11ct> W[ 200 i gn^Tirg^ (yil^o^) ^<ITW(rf?tf3n^T Contpany 06/12/2006 ' Shri V.R. Tiwari, counsell Heard on M.(C).P. No. : 1423 days in filing this M.C.C. The brief facts are that 1 arising out of permanent disabj Das, learned Motor Accident CW 'MACT'), Biiaspur awarded insurance Company/Applicant h| Misc. Appeal was preferr^ by the applicanVlnsurance High Court of Chhattisgarh upo^i this appeal was transferred to applicant in para 2 of the applict of the applicant/lnsurance Com| order-sheet shows that the matte as the appellant did not pay FJI publication as ordered by the default on 25.11.2002. Sincel Company and also on account good, She appeal was dismissed Aggrieved by the 01 Company/applicant filed the pres| perusal ofthe application IVt.(C) shown for condonation of dela\ Company was in complete slui satisfactory explanation is offereitl considerabie delay. eorrlpensation ^rafci^-r WRff ff f5tA tfSRSIT ^31^T311^?T Colirt tor the applicant. '099Q006 for condonation of delay of on 4.5.1995 in Ctaim Case No. 11/89 ity suffered by the Claimant Bhagwan ims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as of Rs.46,225.30 against the srein. >d on 21.7.1995 against the said award SubsequenUy, on formation of re-organization of the State of M.P., his High Court. As mentioned by the ation, Vakalatnama was filed on behalf ^any on 29.11.2001 . A perusal of the |er was pending for removal of default |rocess fee for issuance of notice by I. The matter carne up for hearing on no one appeared for the Insurance |of the default having not been made for non-prosecution.. 1der dated 25.11.2002, Insurance i^nt application on 22.11 .2006. Upon a f. 2099/2006, sufRcient cause is not It appears that applicant/lnsurance ijiber over a number of years and no in prefemng the M.C.C. after such^_ XI-HC-78 3:s?'^l'41c)'i|,aiT(i.tf'ls, I«KVII«^<. m. c-c-..(Mp- ^i^ •^. *11*1CTI Sh*11<h ^; 200,4 \^ 3TI^?T (13^7 (yii^si^iT) ^l^TWf^N; (raTsn^Tgi^ra; Kvr. '<: ?^ITW gf^r 3ii^?T _ !n the aforesaid condonation of delay is dismiss^d ofMANo. 757/1995ateo; ciitcumstances, M.(C).P.2099/2006 for M.C.C. No. 794/2006 for restoration dismissed. stands *i<if<n<l1-< HiiciTfffeIA<Ri+<;i< ^sTf^iTsn^r I-1.., SdA jDilip Raosaheb Desimiukhl Judge