Suresh Mulchand Rathod (Pawar) vs Snajeev Trambaklalji Agrawal And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1643 Bom

                                                                     49CA2191.2018
                                        -1-

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2191 OF 2018
                                      IN
                     FIRST APPEAL [ST] NO. 31742 OF 2017

 Suresh Mulchand Rathod (Pawar)                                         ...Applicant

          Versus

 Snajeev Trambaklalji Agrawal & Anr.                                ...Respondents

                                   .....
 Shri. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for the applicant
 Shri. C. V. Bodkhe, Advocate h/f Shri. R. V. Gore, Advocate for
 respondent No. 1
 Shri. A. G. Kanade, Advocate for respondent No. 2
                                   .....

                                 CORAM : B. U. DEBADWAR, J.

                                 DATE         : 25th January, 2021

 PER COURT : -


 1.               This is an application for condonation of 426 days delay

 caused in filing an appeal against the Judgment and Award dated

 29.03.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon in

 Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 495 of 2010, whereby the

 disability claim has been allowed partly with simple interest @ 7.5%

 p.a. from the date of the petition till the realization of the entire

 amount.




 SG Punde, PA


::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2021                       ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:09:00 :::
                                                                    49CA2191.2018
                                        -2-

 2.               Heard Shri. M. M. Bhokarikar, learned Advocate for the

 applicant, Shri. C. V. Bodkhe, learned Advocate on behalf of

 respondent No. 1 and Shri. A. G. Kanade, learned Counsel                         for

 respondent No. 2.



 3.               Shri. Bhokarikar submitted that, the applicant, who was

 20 years old college-going youth, met with an accident involving the

 offending vehicle driven by the driver employed by respondent no. 1,

 in a rash and negligent manner. Due to injury caused in the said

 accident, the applicant suffered permanent disability. Though the

 Tribunal has accepted the evidence of medical expert regarding

 disability, the disability has not been assessed properly.                      The

 applicant/appellant has good case on merits for enhancement of the

 compensation.          Due to disability suffered by the applicant, it was

 difficult for him to take necessary steps for preferring appeal in time,

 however, with great efforts he managed to collect necessary

 documents, engaged a lawyer and preferred appeal along with this

 application.



 4.               Looking to the condition of the applicant and the

 difficulties being faced by him, the delay of 426 days caused in filing

 the appeal cannot be said to be intentional or deliberate.

 SG Punde, PA


::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2021                     ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:09:00 :::
                                                                  49CA2191.2018
                                      -3-




 5.               Per contra, Shri. A. G. Kanade, learned Counsel for

 respondent No. 2, vehemently argued that, the impugned Judgment

 and Award is correct, proper and legal in all respects. There is no

 merit in the appeal sought to be preferred by the applicant.                  The

 explanation tendered for the delay in paragraph no. 3 of the

 application is not sufficient within the meaning of Section 5 of the

 Limitation Act and, therefore, the application for condonation of delay

 is liable to be dismissed.



 6.               Shri. C. V. Bodkhe appearing on behalf of respondent

 no.1 - owner of the offending vehicle adopts the aforesaid arguments

 advanced by Shri. A. G. Kanade.



 7.               In the light of the aforesaid submissions made at bar, I

 have carefully gone through the record, more particularly, age of the

 applicant and disability suffered by him in the said accident. Looking

 to the amputation of right lower limb, it cannot be said that whatever

 difficulties being suffered by him stated in the paragraph no. 3 of the

 application, are hypothetical and not genuine. The explanation for

 delay given in the application referred to in paragraph supra, in my

 view,     it is a sufficient explanation       to condone the same.

 SG Punde, PA


::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:09:00 :::
                                                                    49CA2191.2018
                                          -4-

 Shri. Bhokarikar, on instructions, submitted that, the applicant waives

 right to claim interest on the enhanced amount, if any, in the appeal

 for the period of 426 days i.e. period of delay caused in preferring

 appeal.



 8.               In view of above, I pass the following order: -

                                     ORDER

[i] The Civil Application is allowed.

[ii] The delay caused in preferring the appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 29.03.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 495 of 2010, is condoned.

[iii] Appeal be registered.

[iv] Copy of this order be annexed to the appeal.

[ B. U. DEBADWAR ] JUDGE

SG Punde, PA