HEGH COURT OF CHHATTHSGARH AT BILASPUR ElViSlON BENCH CGRAM: HON’BLE SHRE RA§EEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. MAC No.136 Gf 2006 APPELL NT I‘inhnaa ummmi’h l. Ku. Nirasha Bai, Aged about 12 years S/o Late Keshavram Chandravanshi, R10 Gatato!a, Pest Tappa, PS Dongargaan, District — Rajnandgaon (CG) Thro'ugh :‘ Naturai Guardian Uncle Mahesh Kumar Chanéravanshi, son of IaLte Serharam, aged abcut 40 years, resident of Gatatola, Post Tapa, PS Dongargaon, Disfrict Rajnandgaon (CG) wersds Ashdk Kumar, S/o Dukhuram Yadav, Aged about 40 years, resident of Bamieshwri Ward Dongargarh, PS Dongargarh, District — Rajnandgaori (CG) RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. Mr Venkatraman, S/o Neeiamvalam, resident of Qtr. No.LB Sector —- 5 Street No.31, Bhiiai Nagar, District — Durg (CG) The New India Insurance Company Limtted, Branch Office Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (CG) Misceitaneous Appeai uiS 173 at the Motor Vehicie Act: 1983 Present: Shri Rakesh Sahu, teamed counsel for the appellant: Shri Abnishek Shanna, teamed counsei for ' respondent No.1. None for respondents No. 2 and 3 though served. ORoER mm May, 200s) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing l.A.No.2884I2006, the appeuant is granted exemption from fiiing certified copy of the impugned award. 2. Learned counsei for the parties are heard on M.C.P.No.1566/2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeai. \ i 3. Thie appeai has been iiied by the appellant in the year l 2006 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.08.2003, passed in Claim Case No.256/2002. 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 r appellant was not knowing as to whether an appeal would lie against the award is not at all convincing as the appellant was represented before the Tribunal 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.156612006, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed as time-barred. Sdl- , 5di— sinha Chief Justice l sunriKuma' , d e subbu