United India Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Sunita Balasaheb Munde And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1123 Bom

                                                                      19-CA-2795-18.odt


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2795 OF 2018
     IN FAST/2345/2018 WITH CA/2796/2018 IN FAST/2345/2018

 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL
            MANAGER, OSMANPURA, AURANGABAD
                            VERSUS
          SUNITA BALASAHEB MUNDE AND OTHERS
                                ...
  Advocate for Applicant : Shri J. R. Patil h/f Shri A. G. Kanade
       Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Shri A. D. Aghav
                                ...


                                     CORAM : B. U. DEBADWAR, J.

                                     DATE       : 18th JANUARY, 2021

PER COURT :

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 72

days caused in preferring appeal against judgment and award dated

28-07-2017, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Ambajogai, District Beed, in MACP No.80 of 2014,

whereby the claim is fully allowed.

2. Heard Shri J. R. Patil, learned advocate for the applicant

/ appellant - United India Insurance company and Shri A. D. Aghav,

learned advocate for respondent No.1. Nobody appears for

respondents No. 2 and 3, though served with notice.

3. Applicant / appellant is original respondent No.2 -

Insurance Company. Respondent No.1 is the original claimant.

1 of 3

19-CA-2795-18.odt

Respondents No. 2 and 3 are owner and driver of offending vehicle,

respectively.

4. While taking me through the application Mr. J. R. Patil,

learned advocate for applicant submits that applicant had applied

for certified copy shortly after pronouncement of the impugned

judgment and award. After receiving certified copies of the

impugned judgment and award, much time was spent initially in

seeking opinion of its Divisional Office and then the legal retainer.

After receiving legal opinion from the retainer, appeal was filed

along with present application. Delay of 72 days is neither

intentional or deliberate nor due to negligence of the applicant,

therefore, application deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, Shri A. D. Aghav, learned advocate for

respondent No.1, strenuously opposed the application inter alia

contending that the cause shown in the application is not at all

sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, therefore, delay cannot be condoned.

6. Having considered the aforesaid reasons for delay in the

interest of justice, it would be legal and proper to condone the

delay. If short delay of 72 days is condoned, no prejudice would be

caused to the respondents.

2 of 3

19-CA-2795-18.odt

7. In view of the above, this application is allowed. The

delay of 72 days caused in preferring appeal against the impugned

judgment and award is hereby condoned.

8. The appeal be registered, if it stands in scrutiny.

(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.)

SVH

3 of 3