FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8138 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 16599 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard Shri Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Dalal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Though, respondent No.2 is served, nobody appears on behalf of the said respondent. This application is taken out for condoning the delay of 316 days, caused in filing the appeal. The applicants are original claimants, who had filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, on account of death of their son Satappa, who died in an accident on 2.10.2006. By judgment and award dated 26.6.2008, the learned M.A.C.T., Nilanga, awarded compensation of Rs.2,19,100/- inclusive of Rs.50,000/- towards no fault liability. In the application, it is contended that the deceased had taken hand loan for purchase of buffaloes and cows. After death of Satappa, the applicants are required to discharge the liability. It is averred in the application that they went to Pune for searching of work. The applicants were worked as watchman in apartment at Pune from January, 2008 to June, 2009. The applicants further asserted in para 6 that they are poor and illiterate and they did not know about the statutory period for filing appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, who reiterated the submissions made in the application and submitted that the application for condonation of delay, deserves to be granted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the assertions in para 6 that the applicants do not know about the statutory period of filing first appeal, is not valid ground for condoning the delay, as ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. He further submits that delay is not properly explained. After hearing counsel for the parties, as also considering the controversy raised in the first appeal and the reasons given in support of the application, in my view, the applicants have made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence, in the interest of justice. application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B" with no order as to costs. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) Date:16.11.2009. rlj/