1 MAC No. 184 of 2020 2026:CGHC:16214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 184 of 2020  Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, Through Authorized Signatory, Ramesh Kumar Sinha, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- II Floor, Jeet Towers, GE Road, Raipur, Police Station- Azad Chowk, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1. Kamal Kumar Nayak S/o Harihar Nayak, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Basti Saraypali, Police Station, Saraypali, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 1). 2. Shivkumar Mirgha S/o Binda Lal Mirgha, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 13, Ravidas Nagar, Arang, Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 1). 3. Mohammad Kadir S/o Mohammad Kasim Ali, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Sheetlapara, Arang, Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 2). --- Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Shekhar Rao Saheb Amin, Advocate. For Respondents :- None. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 08.04.2026 1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) along with I.A. No.1, ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MAC No. 184 of 2020 application for condonation of delay in filing the instant MAC. In which the reason for delay is mentioned that on account of delay in communication of award and thereafter, in granting approval and depositing the amount the delay of 429 days’ is occurred. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the delay of 429 days’ is bonafidely and unintentionally occurred, therefore, delay of 429 days’ in filing the instant MAC deserves to be condoned. 3.I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. 4.In the application for condonation of delay the only reason that has been assigned by the Insurance Company is, due to delay in communication of the passing of award to the competent authority and reversal of mail of the award between Legal and Finance Divisions of the appellant and also due to delay in granting approval by the competent authority, and furthermore there was misunderstanding which happened while communicating with the present counsel. However, the said ground cannot be a sufficient ground to condone the delay of 429 days which is more than an year, therefore, the Insurance Company/appellant ought to have shown sufficient cause for delay of more than one year in filing the instant MAC. In that view of the matter, I do not find good ground or sufficient cause or explanation to condoned the delay of 429 days in 3 MAC No. 184 of 2020 filing the instant appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently, appeal stands dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit