1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8849 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.18315 OF 2007 United India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... APPLICANT VERSUS Savita w/o Gautam Tate & ors. ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri P.C. Mayure, Advocate holding for Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant Shri S.A. Ambad, Advocate for respondents (absent) ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 105 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 31.3.2007, rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambajogai in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.29/2004. 2 3. The applicant submits that, the applicant applied for certified copy of the said judgment and award on 16.4.2007 which were made available to the applicant on 23.4.2007. Thereafter the Advocate for the applicant submitted the same to the office along with legal opinion on 24.7.2007 to Branch Office Beed. Thereafter Divisional Office verified the documents and found that there are grounds for filing appeal and hence, matter was sent for obtaining legal opinion to the Advocate. Accordingly, Advocate submitted legal opinion on 7.8.2007 and opined to file the appeal. Thereafter the entire file was forwarded to the Regional office, Nagpur seeking approval. Thereafter, the competent authority granted sanction for filing the appeal and matter was sent back to Divisional Office on 24.8.2007. 4. However, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the concerned officer Shri Khedewal proceeded on leave on account of death of his father and he was on leave for 15 days and ultimately the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 21.9.2007, resulting into delay of 105 days. The applicant submits that, the said delay is bonafide and same is not intentional , willful and deliberate and certainly not inordinate and, therefore, same be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. Considering the submissions in the present 3 application and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it is apparent that the applicant has explained the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal in paragraph No.2 of the application and the said reasons appear to be satisfactory and hence, applicant has explained the said delay satisfactorily. Moreover, it also appears that the said delay is not willful, deliberate and intentional and it appears to be bonafide and the said delay of 105 days is certainly not inordinate and, therefore, same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 6. In the circumstances, the present application deserves to be allowed and same stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) thereof and delay of 105 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned and accompanying First Appeal under stamp No.18315/2007 be registered and numbered accordingly. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca8849.07