1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5529 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 9559 OF 2006 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Divisional Controller, Jalgaon ..Applicant VERSUS Sau.Sumitra alias Suman Sabhaji Patil & ors. ..Respondents ..... Shri Manoj Shinde, advocate holding for Shri M.K.Goyanka, advocate for the applicant Shri S.P.Tiwari,advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Application against Resp.no.3 dismissed Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for respondent no. 4 absent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard respective counsel for the parties. 2 The applicant has preferred the present application for 2 condonation of delay of 63 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 29.9.2005 rendered by learned Ist Adhoc Additional District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. No. 317 of 1999 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,65,500/- with interest thereon to respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein. 3 The applicant submits that the delay of 60 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is due to some official letter correspondence and communication with the higher authorities, as the central office of the applicant is at Mumbai and permission of central office was necessary for filing the appeal. It is also submitted that the said delay of 63 days is not intentional, willful or deliberate and, therefore, prayed for condoning the same in the interest of justice. 4 Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the applicant has not explained day-to-day delay and present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 3 5 Considering the averments in the application and also considering the rival submissions, it appears that the applicant has stated the reasons for causing the delay in filing the accompanying First Appeal in para nos. 2 and 3 properly and satisfactorily. It also appears that the said delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not willful, deliberate or intentional and the applicant has satisfactorily explained the said delay. 6 In the circumstances, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly same stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and delay of 63 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned. The accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca.5529.06