IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9193 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 15836 OF 2008 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chandrakala Vinayak Autade and others ... Shri Ajit Kadethankar, Advocate for the applicant Shri C.R.Shinde, Advocate for respondents 1 to 4. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. Dated : 20.11.2009 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the notices to respondents 5 and 6 - owner and driver respectively of the vehicle - are not required. Said statement is accepted and taken on record. 3. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. The applicant has preferred this application for condonation of delay of 10 days occurred in filing the First Appeal challenging the judgment and award dt. 5.4.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kopargaon in MACP No.581 of 2002. 2 5. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that it does not bear the substance and it is devoid of merits. He prayed to reject the same. 6. Considering the contents of the application, it is seen that the applicant has explained the reasons for delay in paragraph Nos.5 to 8 of the application. The reasons are satisfactory. The delay does not appear to be willful, deliberate or inordinate. Hence, the same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 7. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Delay of 10 days stands condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl