1 2025:CGHC:5177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 104 of 2024 • SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, 4th Floor, Pujari Chambers, N.H. 43 Pachpedi Naka, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Non-Applicant No. 3) ... Applicant versus 1. Tulsiram Rajput S/o Late Shri Bhagauram Rajput Aged About 60 Years R/ Village Sarangpur, Thana Dadhi, Tehsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) (Claimants) 2. Shiv Verma S/o Ramchand Verma Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Thengabhat, Thana Dadhi, Tehsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) (Driver) 3. Anumabai Verma W/o Ramchand Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Thengabhat, Thana Dadhi, Tehsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) (Owner) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 29/01/2025 1. This Revision has been filed being aggrieved by the award dated 07.10.2023 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.01.30 10:56:26 +0530 2 District Bemetara in Claim Case No.7/2023, whereby, in an injury case, an award has been passed to the tune of Rs.35,000/- and it has been ordered that the same shall be recovered by the applicant/Insurance Company from non-applicants No.1 & 2. 2. Heard on I.A. No.01/2024, an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 3. On perusal of the grounds stated in the application, it appears that after receiving the copy of the award passed by the Tribunal, the Company decided to prefer a Revision. The impugned order has been passed on 07.10.2023. The certified copy of the impugned order was received on 09.11.2023 and an application for obtaining the certified copy was preferred on 07.11.2023. Though, in an injury case, an award has been passed and an affidavit has also been filed by the Officer of the Insurance Company by making an averment inter alia that the claimants are not dependent upon the deceased, but the present is a injury case. 4. For the foregoing, considering all these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that sufficient explanation has not been offered for the delay caused in filing the instant Revision. 5. Accordingly, the Revision is dismissed as barred by limitation. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka