IB^" HiGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH'AT SSLASPUR M.A.iC) No.882ffi007 _i Singie Ssnch: Hon'bis Shri DiSip Raiosahsb Cteshmukh, J. ApEeUant (insurer) Respondents (1 & 2 Ciaimants) (Driveri 'Vehicie Ownerj National Insurarice. Co. Ltd. KolRatta, C/o National Insurance Company Lirnited, Aakashganga Parishar, Supela Bhila, Tahsil & Distt; Durg (CCi) Versus 1. Rajesh Kumar Jain, S/o Mohan Jain, aged about 26 years, 2. Mohan Lal Jain, S/o Shri Premshukla »)ain, aged about 60 years; Both are R/'o Vaibhav Naveiti, Infront of 43-A 16 Milestone, Nehru Nagar tWest) Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (CG) 3. Munirul is!am, S/o Mohram Ali Shekh, Present Address: Mominpur, Kolkata, WB (11) 2729 (West Bengai) 4. Gurucharan Singh, S/o Jogendar Singh, Koiaghat Road, Domanpur, KoikatSa, WB (11.) 2729 (West Bengal) Memorandum of aopeai underSectiori.173 oflhe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Shri Raj Awasthi, counsei forthe appeilant. ORAL ORDER (Psssed on 27ih July, 2007) (1) h!eard on !.A. No. 2 for coridonatlorrof de!ay in fSling tiiis appea! by the Insurance Company Limited. (2) The impugned order was passed by ihe !V Additional Motor Accideni Claims Tribunai, Distt. Durg in ciaim case No.133/2005 on 4.07.2005. ^ „ c< <- Appeal was preferred on 16.7.2007 i.e. after a delay of 287 days as reported by the registry. (3) Learned counsel for the appeiiant was heard on i.A. No.2 for condonation of delay. The oniy explanation offered by the Insurance Company Is that since the Regionai Oft'ice was opened at Nagpur, the delay occurred because the fiie was sent to the Regional Office. However, no details have been furnished as to when the file was sent to the Regiona! Office and v/hat was the cause for the deiay. tt is also to be noticed that the appeilant'lnsurer was contesting the claim case. The affidavit of the concerned Regionai Manager at Nagpur has aiso not been fiied and the affidavit of the Deputy Manager, Bilaspur is also whoily siient on thls issue. Thus, in my opinion, the appetjant/lnsurer has faiied to show any satisfactory reason for the inordinate dslay in fiiing this appeai, which is hope'essiy barred by iimitation. (4) In this view of the matter, I.A. No.2 for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequentiy, the appeal also stands dismsssed as barred by limitation. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 'riya -:1..;:-