Bombay High Court
Archana Rameshwar Chavan And ... vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 25 January, 2021
Bench: B. U. Debadwar
33CA8901.2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8901 OF 2015
IN
FIRST APPEAL [ST] NO. 11576 OF 2015
Archana wd/o Rameshwar Chavan & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors. ...Respondents
.....
Shri. S. B. Darwande, Advocate h/f Shri. M. R. Deshmukh, Advocate
for the applicants
Shri. V. R. Mundada, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
.....
CORAM : B. U. DEBADWAR, J.
DATE : 25th January, 2021
PER COURT : -
1. This is an application for condonation of 171 days delay
caused in preferring the Appeal against the Judgment and Award
dated 28th July, 2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Aurangabad in MACP No. 165 of 2011, whereby the death claim came
to be allowed partly.
2. Heard Shri. S. B. Darwande, learned Counsel on behalf of
the applicants and Shri. V. R. Mundada, learned Counsel for
respondent No. 1 - Insurer of offending vehicle.
SG Punde, PA
::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:09:04 :::
33CA8901.2015
-2-
3. Respondent nos. 2 & 3, owner and driver of the offending
vehicle respectively, failed to appear though notices were served on
them.
4. Shri. Darwande, learned Counsel for the applicants
submitted that, late Rameshwar Chavan died in an accident, took
place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by
respondent no. 3 as driver of respondent no. 2. The compensation
awarded by learned MACT, Aurangabad, is incorrect and inadequate.
Applicants are the widow, minor children and aged parents of the
deceased-Rameshwar. They were fully dependent on the deceased-
Rameshwar. On sudden accidental death of bread earner of family,
the family members went in a shock. It had become difficult for
applicant no. 1 - Archana to maintain minor children and aged
parents-in-law. She had no source of income of her own.
Consequently, applicants could not manage to raise the money for
preferring appeal. After getting the compensation amount determined
by MACT, in pursuance of the application for execution of award,
they have filed present appeal along with the present application.
According to the learned counsel for the applicant, delay of 171 days
caused in filing the appeal is neither intentional or deliberate nor due
SG Punde, PA
::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:09:04 :::
33CA8901.2015
-3-
to negligence. It is purely because of bona fide reasons and,
therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned.
5. Per contra, Shri. V. R. Mundada, learned Counsel for
respondent no. 1 - Insurance Company, vehemently argued that, the
explanation given by the applicants in paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the
application, is not cogent and sufficient to condone the delay within
the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the
application for condonation of delay is liable to dismissed.
6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made at bar by
learned Advocates representing both the sides, I have carefully gone
through the record. The record shows that, the deceased Rameshwar
Chavan met with an accident involving offending motor vehicle and
died at the early age of 35. Record further shows that, the applicants
are the widow, two minor children and aged parents of the deceased -
Rameshwar Chavan. The applicant no. 1 has stated on oath that, she
has no source of income of her own and were fully dependent on the
deceased - Rameshwar Chavan. It was natural on the part of the
applicants to undergo the shock due to sudden death of Rameshwar
Chavan. The reason for not preferring the appeal in time due to
paucity of money and due to undergoing shock, are sufficient reasons
SG Punde, PA
::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:09:04 :::
33CA8901.2015
-4-
within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Nothing is
brought on record by respondent no. 1 to falsify the aforesaid reasons.
7. Shri. Mundada, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1
submitted that, since 2015, the application for condonation of delay is
pending. The applicants have not taken effective steps for hearing
and disposal of the application. As such, they are not entitled for
interest on the enhanced compensation, if any.
8. This objection cannot be decided at this juncture, since
fate of the appeal is not known. However, respondent no. 1 is at
liberty to raise this objection during the course of hearing of the
appeal. The point raised by Shri. Mundada, learned Counsel for
respondent No. 1, in respect of the interest for the period of five years
i.e. during which the application for condonation of delay was
pending, is kept open for decision while disposing of the appeal.
9. Thus, in view of the above, the application deserves to be
allowed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
[i] The Civil Application is allowed.
SG Punde, PA
33CA8901.2015
[ii] The delay of 171 days caused in preferring the Appeal
against the Judgment and Award dated 28th July, 2014
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad
in MACP No. 165 of 2011, is condoned.
[iii] Appeal be registered.
[ B. U. DEBADWAR ]
JUDGE
SG Punde, PA
