Bombay High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Lakshmi Annabhau Idhape And Ors on 18 January, 2021
Bench: B. U. Debadwar
20-CA-3624-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3624 OF 2018
IN FAST/5689/2018
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS
BRANCH MANAGER, ABC COMPLEX, MIDC CHIKALTHANA,
AURANGABAD
VERSUS
LAKSHMI ANNABHAU IDHAPE AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Shri Swapnil S. Dargad h/f
Shri S. G. Chapalgaonkar
Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri N. C. Garud
...
CORAM : B. U. DEBADWAR, J.
DATE : 18th JANUARY, 2021
PER COURT :
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 37
days caused in preferring appeal against judgment and award dated
20-09-2017, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidental
Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.
300 of 2010 whereby death claim came to be allowed with costs.
2. Heard Shri Swapnil S. Dargad, learned advocate for the
applicant / appellant - Insurance Company and Shri N. C. Garud,
learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. - original
claimants. None appears for respondent No.4 - owner of the
vehicle involved in the accident.
1 of 3
20-CA-3624-18.odt
3. Shri Swapnil S. Dargad, learned advocate for applicant /
appellant, submits that after obtaining certified copies of the
impugned judgment and award, opinion for preferring appeal was
sought from the Head Office. After receiving opinion, some time
was spent in collecting certified copies of relevant documents,
necessary for preparing and filing of the appeal, which were not
supplied by the claimants at the time of filing the claim petition.
After getting the certified copies of the relevant documents, appeal
came to be prepared and filed. The short delay of 37 days is
neither deliberate nor due to negligence of the applicant / appellant.
There is a merit in appeal. Applicant / appellant has every hope in
success of the appeal.
4. Per contra, Shri N. C. Garud, learned advocate for
respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, submits that the aforesaid grounds
stated in paragraphs No. 3 and 4 of the application are not at all
cogent and sufficient to condone the delay, therefore, the
application may be rejected.
5. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made at par by
both the sides, I have carefully gone through the record. The
grounds stated in paragraphs No. 3 and 4 of the application cannot
be said to be insufficient and the delay also cannot be said to be
intentional or due to negligence. Therefore, delay needs to be
2 of 3
20-CA-3624-18.odt
condoned. If delay is condoned no prejudice would be caused to
the respondents.
6. In view of the above, this application is allowed. The
delay of 37 days caused in preferring appeal against the impugned
judgment and award is condoned.
7. The appeal accompanied with application be registered,
if it stands in scrutiny.
(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.)
SVH
3 of 3
