Digitally signed 2026:CGHC:8269 by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR D 20 a 2 te 6 : .02.17

1 + 0 0 : 5 5 3 2 0 :46 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 88 of 2024 • Praveen Tiwari S/o Digri Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o Bhatthapara, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Owner)

... Appellant versus

1. Smt. Sunita Anant Wd/o Late Ramkumar Anant Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur (Aghina) P.S. Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.)

2. Naveen Kumar Anant S/o Late Ramkumar Anant Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur (Aghina) P.S. Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.)

3. Sudhanshu Anant S/o Late Ramkumar Anant Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur (Aghina) P.S. Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.)

4. Sampet W/o Ramdas Anant Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur (Aghina) P.S. Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.)

5. Prashant Pandey S/o Shivnarayan Pandey Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Salka (Aghina) P.S. Bhatgaon Tahsil Bhaiyathan Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) (Driver Of Motorcycle)

6. Abhinav Pandey S/o Prashant Pandey Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Salka (Aghina) P.S. Bhatgaon Tahsil Bhaiyathan Distt. Surajpur (C.G.)

(Owner Of Motorcycle)

7. I.C.I.C.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) (Insurer)

8. Narendra Singh S/o Govind Singh Aged About 36 Years Caste Gond, Lanchi P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) (Driver Of Tractor)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant/Owner : Mr. Ravi Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No. 7 : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shekhar Rao Saheb Amin, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

16.02.2026

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2023, an application for condonation of delay.

2. The owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal challenging the liability part assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur passed in Claim Case No. 48/2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,82,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on account of death of Ram Kumar and fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle.

3. The owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal with delay of 1274 days. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the award was passed on 27.02.2020, and this appeal has been preferred on 24.11.2023. He would submit that counsel engaged by the appellant herein failed to inform the appellant about the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. He would submit that the appellant collected certified copy of the award and other relevant documents on 08.11.2023, and thereafter, preferred this appeal. He would pray to condone the delay.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the appellant failed to explain sufficient cause in the application for condonation of delay. They would contend that the application (I.A. No. 01/2023) deserves to be rejected.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay with utmost circumspection.

7. The award was passed on 27.02.2020, whereas this appeal has been preferred on 24.11.2023. The appellant has taken a plea that he was not aware of the award, though the appellant was duly represented by his counsel before the learned Tribunal; therefore, this ground is not available to the appellant. The appellant remained in state of slumber for period of 33 months from date of award and failed to explain delay properly.

8. Law as regards scope and jurisdiction of the Court in the matter of condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act is wel