JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the appellant. we are of the opinion that no case for interference is made out. 2. Firstly, the ground on which the appeal has been dismissed reflects callous negligence on the part of learned counsel to prosecute the appeal. The appeal was presented barred by time by one day. Office has pointed out on 14.8.2002 that the appeal was barred by time and is not accompanied by an application u/S. Limitation Act. No attempt was made to make any such application. The case was ordered to be listed in Court on 18.11.2002. The case was not listed until 27.1.2003. However, during this period also no attempt was made to make any application for condonation of delay for filing the appeal within limitation. The appeal was not accompanied by any Vakalatnama in favour of the counsel who has presented the appeal and he was also not counsel in the case before the Tribunal who could have acted in this Court on the basis of any power filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In view of the presentation of the appeal which is barred by time and no attempt has been made to remove the defects even after 4 months of pointing out the defects by the office, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that he had sought adjournment for removing the defects but the same was not granted. However, this fact is not reflected from the order under appeal. 4. Apart from the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on technical ground and the appellant ought to have been given some time to remove the defects for examining the merit of the case, we find no substance in the appeal. The only contention raised before us on merit was about the inadequate damages granted for loss of property namely car involved in the accident. The admitted facts that the car involved in the accident was a Ambassador car which was damaged in the accident in 1995. The assessee has claimed Rs. 1,35,530/- as damages on account of accident in respect of car in question on the basis of repairing bills. However, he has not proved as to what damages has been caused to the car on account of accident. The assessee has claimed Rs. 1,35,530/- as damages on account of accident in respect of car in question on the basis of repairing bills. However, he has not proved as to what damages has been caused to the car on account of accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal having considered the fact that details of damage caused to the car due to accident has not been proved for which repair bill could have been related for assessing the damages as a result of accident. But considered that part of repairs would have been related to damage caused to car due to accident, he granted two third of repair bill estimated loss at Rs. 95,000/- which in our opinion in no circumstances looking to the age of the car could be said to be inadequate. 5. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissedAppeal Dismissed. *******