FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1984 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 2408 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ This application is for condonation of delay of 782 days caused in filing the first appeal. The applicants, who are original claimants, have preferred the first appeal against the judgment and award dated 9.8.2006, passed by the learned M.A.C.T. Osmanabad in M.A.C.P. No. 73 of 1999. The applicant’s’ son viz. Dhananjay, aged about 13 years at the time of accident, died on 23.11.1997. He was knocked by the truck bearing No. MH-17-A-5691. They filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/-. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- inclusive of interim award of Rs. 50,000/- under the principle of no fault liability together with interest @ 8% p.a. From the date of the claim petition till the realization. In the application, it is averred that in para 15 of the impugned judgment the Tribunal observed that the the applicants are entitled to Rs.1,50,000/-. In view of this, the applicants have preferred this first appeal for claiming remaining compensation of Rs.50,000/-. In para 7 of the application, it is asserted that the applicants are poor persons and their economical condition is very weak. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the delay is not properly explained. He further submitted that the delay is of 782 days which is inordinate and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. Though respondent No.2 is served, nobody appears. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and considering the controversy raised in the appeal and the fact that the appeal preferred by the original claimants claiming compensation account of death of their son, in my opinion, the delay deserves to be condoned, in the interest of justice. Hence, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 05.12.2009. rlj/ FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 2408 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Not on board. Mentioned. By consent taken up for admission. Heard Shri. Jadhavar, for respondent No. 1. Though respondent No.2 is served, nobody appears for him. Admit Shri. Jadhavar, waives service on behalf of respondent No.1. Call for record and proceeding. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) 05.12.2009. rlj/