Hansaben Wd/O Bholaram Chhogaji ... vs Sanjaykumar Bholaram Chandel
2021 Latest Caselaw 3976 Guj

         C/CA/205/2021                                  ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 205 of 2021

                  In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 26719 of 2020

==========================================================
         HANSABEN WD/O BHOLARAM CHHOGAJI CHANDEL
                          Versus
              SANJAYKUMAR BHOLARAM CHANDEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHETANKUMAR K SHAH(7364) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R)(69) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                           Date : 09/03/2021

                             ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chethankumar Shah on

behalf of the applicant and learned Advocate Mr. H. G.

Mazmudar on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. At the outset, learned Advocate for the applicant

Mr. Shah submits that respondent No.1 has expired and

therefore, he may be deleted.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar submits that he would

not have any objection with regard to the same but at the

same time learned advocate Mr. Majmudar submits that upon

C/CA/205/2021 ORDER

deletion of respondent No.1 i.e. the driver of the offending

vehicle, the liability of the insurance company would cease.

4. The present application is preferred by the applicants

praying for condoning delay of 232 days in preferring First

Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Learned

MACT (Aux.), Panchmahals at Halol in MACP No. 1016/2017

dated 19/1/2019. Learned advocate for the applicant submits

that after the judgment and award had been passed by the

learned Tribunal, applicants had applied for obtaining certified

copy of the judgment on 1.06.2019 and whereas the same has

been received on 03.10.2019. Thereafter, the applicants have

been advised to prefer appeal before this Court whereas since

the applicants belong to the lower strata of the society and

since they have not been paid any amount of compensation by

the Tribunal, they had to arrange for expenses of filing of the

petition etc. on account of which the delay has occurred.

Learned advocate further submits that delay is not intentional

and delay would not give any unjust advantage to the

applicants and whereas condoning the delay would not cause

any prejudice to the respondent - insurance company. Thus

submitting he has requested this court to condone delay of

232 days in filing the appeal.

C/CA/205/2021 ORDER

5. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar on the other hand

submitted that the delay is gross and unexplained and

therefore, he submits that this Court may not condone the

delay. Learned advocate further submits that in view of

deletion of the driver of the vehicle, as such the insurance

company would not be a necessary party to the litigation. As

regards the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Majmudar,

this court is of the opinion that the same can be considered at

the stage of hearing of the appeal whereas this application is

preferred for condoning the delay.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

Advocate Mr. Shah and considering the averments made in the

application, delay of 232 days in filing appeal against the

judgment and order passed by Ld. MACT (Aux.) Panchmahals,

At Halol, dtd. 19/01/2019 in MACP 1016/2017 is hereby

condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) MAYA S. CHAUHAN