Sandeep Balasaheb Ransing vs T.Ramu T. Lingalah And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12214 Bom

                                                                         ca7523.15
                                      -1-


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     926 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7523 OF 2015
                                IN FAST/14892/2014

                     SANDEEP BALASAHEB RANSING
                                   VERSUS
                    T.RAMU T. LINGALAH AND OTHERS
                                      .....
      Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Jeevan R. Patil h/f Mr. V.S. Badakh
           Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. D.P. Deshpande
                                      .....

                                     CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2021

PER COURT:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel

for respondent No.3.

2. There is delay of 699 days caused in filing appeal preferred

against the judgment and award dated 4.4.2012 passed by M.A.C.T.

Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No. 837 of 2008. The applicant is the

original claimant. The applicant has sustained personal injury in

motor vehicular accident and as such the applicant had preferred

claim petition. The M.A.C.T. Ahmednagar has partly allowed the

claim petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that immediately

after the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the applicant

had approached to his advocate T.K. Balave for preferring an appeal

for enhancement of compensation. The applicant accordingly has

ca7523.15

handed over all papers to advocate T.K. Balave including certified

copy of the impugned judgment and award and in the month of June,

2012 and signed requisite documents. In the month of April, 2014

the applicant came across the news published in new paper in

respect of death of advocate T.K. Balave in jail. The applicant thus

had visited the office of advocate T.K. Balave in the month of May

2014 for making necessary alternate arrangement. However, his file

could not be traced out. The applicant further came to know that the

said counsel even has not preferred the first appeal. Learned

counsel submits that thus delay is caused for which the applicant is

not responsible. There is no intentional delay in preferring appeal,

however, the applicant was prevented from sufficient cause as stated

above to prefer appeal within limitation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent insurer has strongly

resisted the application on the ground that the applicant has not

satisfactorily explained the delay.

5. It appears that due to inaction on the part of counsel engaged

by the applicant to prefer an appeal against the judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal, the appeal could not be preferred within

limitation. The applicant is the original claimant. He has preferred

claim petition for having sustained personal injury in the motor

vehicular accident. Thus, considering entire aspect of the case and

since there is no intentional delay in preferring appeal, I am inclined

ca7523.15

to condone the delay.

6. In view of above and for the reasons stated in the civil

application, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B"

and disposed of.

(V. K. JADHAV, J.)

rlj/