Somaji Udaji Chavan And Ors vs Shri Saibaba Auto Services Thr Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1126 Bom

                                                                   13-CA-13126-17.odt


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13126 OF 2017
                           IN FAST/17294/2017

              SOMAJI UDAJI CHAVAN AND OTHERS
                             VERSUS
 SHRI SAIBABA AUTO SERVICES THROUGH ITS PROP. MOHAN R.
                  NEMANIWAR AND ANOTHER
                                ...
         Advocate for Applicants : Shri Avinash D. Hande
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Shri J. V. Patil h/f Shri G. A. Gadhe
                                ...


                                    CORAM : B. U. DEBADWAR, J.

                                   DATE       : 18th JANUARY, 2021

PER COURT :

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 81

days, caused in preferring appeal against the judgment and award

dated 15-11-2016, passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1 &

Ex-Officio Member M.A.C.T., Nanded in MACP No. 443 of 2010,

whereby the claim is partly allowed.

2. Heard Shri Avinash D. Hande, learned advocate for the

applicants / appellants and Shri J. V. Patil, learned advocate for

respondent No.1. None appeared for respondent No.2, though

served with notice.

3. Shri Avinash D. Hande, advocate for the applicant

submits that deceased Rajendra Somaji Chavan was the only

1 of 2

13-CA-13126-17.odt

earning member of his family consisting of he himself and

applicants. Applicants have no independent source of income. Due

to paucity of money, they could not prefer appeal against the

impugned judgment and award within a period of limitation. After

receiving the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, immediately

they have taken steps and preferred the appeal along with present

application. The short delay of 81 days is neither intentional nor

due to negligence, therefore, deserves to be condoned.

4. Shri J. V. Patil, learned advocate for respondent No.1

submits that application may be allowed.

5. In view of the aforesaid grounds which are sufficient to

condone the delay, this application is allowed. The delay of 81 days

caused in preferring appeal against the impugned judgment and

award is hereby condoned.

6. The appeal be registered, if it stands with the scrutiny.

(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.)

SVH

2 of 2