High Court Of ChhattisgarhMAC/1587/2017dismissed

Bhimi Bai v. Mahendra Pal

2017-12-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1587 of 2017 Bhimi Bai D/o Beduram Nishad Aged About 34 Years Cost Kewat R/o Village Angari, Thana And Tahsil District Balod Chhattisgarh............(Claimant) ---- Appellant

Versus

1. Mahendra Pal S/o Gulab Singh Netam Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Angari, Thana And Tahsil, District Balod Chhattisgarh..............(Driver)

2. Gulab Singh Netam S/o Manbodhan Singh Netam R/o Village Angari, Thana And Tahsil, District Balod Chhattisgarh................ (Owner)

3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch, Branch Office Parakh Bhawan Station Road Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh............ (Insurer).

---Respondents For Appellant :

Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.C. Sahu, Advocate For respective Respondent :

Mr. Kapil Maini, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/12/2017

1. Present is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 07.11.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 115/2014. Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal in an injury case has awarded a compensation of Rs.70,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum.

2. The award was passed on 07.11.2015 and the present appeal has been filed after about 2 years time i.e. on 13.11.2017, thus there is a delay of about 638 days.

3. Along with the present appeal an application I.A. No.1 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The only reason assigned for

-2condoning the delay is the appellant being poor and illiterate lady. However, no substantial material is produced to substantiate this contention, moreover in the application she has specifically said that she was advised by the counsel to prefer an appeal and thereafter no plausible explanation has been given for the inordinate delay in filing of the present case.

4. Further, from the perusal of the findings given in paragraphs No. 14 and 16 of the impugned award, it reflects that the injured in the instant case was not having any such disablement with which she was confined or she could not go to the Court for preferring an appeal.

5. For the given reasons, this Court does not find any strong case for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. I.A. No. 1 accordingly stands rejected. As a consequence, the appeal also stands rejected. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved