Vilas Murlidhar Gosavi vs Suhas Shridhar Randhe And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 12215 Bom

                                                                         ca2469.15
                                      -1-


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     925 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2469 OF 2015
                                IN FAST/1483/2015

                          VILAS MURLIDHAR GOSAVI
                                     VERSUS
                SUHAS SHRIDHAR RANDHE AND ANOTHER
                                        .....
            Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar
              Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Dixit Satyajeet S
                                       .....

                                      CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2021

PER COURT:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel

for respondent No.1.

2. There is delay of 715 days caused in filing appeal preferred

against the judgment and award dated 20.10.2012 passed by

M.A.C.T. Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No. 100 of 2005. The applicant is

the original claimant. The applicant had preferred claim petition on

account of personal injury sustained by him in the motor vehicular

accident.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to financial

constraints, the applicant could not prefer appeal within limitation.

Further, the applicant was almost bedridden and thus delay is

caused. Learned counsel submits that the delay is not intentional

one as the applicant was prevented from sufficient cause in

ca2469.15

preferring appeal within limitation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has strongly

resisted the application on the ground that the applicant has not

satisfactorily explained the delay. None appears for respondent No.2

insurer though duly served.

5. It appears that the applicant original claimant has sustained

permanent disablement to the extent of 40%. It further appears that

though the disablement is to the extent of 40% as contended by the

applicant, the same has resulted into loss of earning capacity to the

extent of 100%. Thus, due to financial constraints and also because

of further consequences of the said disablement, the applicant could

not prefer appeal within limitation. Thus, there is no intentional delay

caused in preferring the appeal.

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/