1 2026:CGHC:2386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 570 of 2020 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle As The Offending Vehicle In Question Bearing Its Registration No. Mp 02 1136 Is Registered In The Name Of Director Of Agriculture, Directorate Of Agriculture Department, Manendragarh District Korea). 2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus  Smt. Mankunwar Wd/o Dharamjeet Sahu Aged About 50 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Jilda, P.S. Khadgawa, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/State : Mr. Anil Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.01 .2026 1. The owners of the vehicle/State have filed this appeal assailing the award passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Korea passed in Claim Case No. 33/2014 dated 11.10.2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 82,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of death of Dharamjeet Sahu with delay of 416 days. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocate appearing for the State would submit that award SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.16 16:05:42 +0530 2 was passed on 11.10.2018, whereas, this appeal was preferred on 29.02.2020. He would submit that copy of award and other relevant documents were forwarded to the department and sanction was accorded by Law and Legislative Affairs department on 25.01.2019. He would submit that on 27.04.2019, Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue), Manendragarh was appointed as Officer Incharge. He would submit that the said officer approached the office of Advocate General on 26.09.2019, and thereafter, appeal was preferred on 29.02.2020. He would submit that the appellants have explained cause of delay properly. Mr. Pandey would submit that MAC No. 251 of 2019 was filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 06.05.2024 and amount of compensation was enhanced from Rs. 82,000/- to 1,08,000/-. He would pray to condone the delay. 4. I have heard Mr. Pandey at length and perused the application. 5. Admittedly, the award was passed on 11.10.2018 and appeal was preferred on 29.02.2020. The sanction was accorded by Law and Legislative Affairs department on 25.01.2019 and the Officer Incharge of the case approached the office of Advocate General on 26.09.2019, but this appeal was preferred on 29.01.2020. The appellants have not explained part of delay from 26.09.2019 till 29.01.2020. 6. Further, the appeal preferred by the claimant has partly been allowed vide judgment dated 06.05.2024 and during course of hearing of that appeal it was not informed by the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State that MAC No. 570 of 2020 is pending against same award. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellants herein failed to explain cause of delay properly and appeal preferred by the claimant has partly been allowed. I am not inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3 01/2020 is hereby rejected. Consequently, appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant