: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.234 OF 2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... Applicant V/s. Sushila Narayan Kapade & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.M.S. Patil for Applicant Mr.R.C. Singh for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 12, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil application has been filed for condoning the delay of 546 days. The explanation given is that the advocate on record in the trial Court did not inform the insurance company that the matter had already been disposed of by the Tribunal. 2. The learned advocate for the respondents submits that the delay should not be condoned as besides stating that the advocate was at fault in not informing the applicant about the disposal of the claim application, no other reason has been mentioned in the application. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Salil Dutta vs. T.M. And M.C. Private Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 185 where the Supreme Court has observed that a private limited company which is being managed by educated businessmen cannot take shelter under the ground that the advocate appearing for them did not inform them of the disposal of the matter before the tribunal. : 2 : 3. It is true that the Apex Court in the aforesaid case has observed that in an ongoing suit posted for final hearing after a lapse of seven years of its institution, the company should have been more vigilant as the defendant i.e. the company was not a rustic villager. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if the company was totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory which was not accepted by the Supreme Court. 4. Considering the submissions made at the bar and the observations of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, it is true that the applicant has approached this Court belatedly almost two years after the award has been passed. However, in the present case, if it is found that the insurance company is not liable, public money would have been disbursed to the claimants though they may not be entitled to the same. 5. However, in my view, the claimants can be adequately compensated by directing the insurance company to pay costs. 6. Accordingly, the civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) on condition that the insurance company pays costs quantified at Rs.1,000./- to each of the respondents herein within two weeks from today. In case the costs are not paid as directed, the appeal to stand dismissed without further reference to Court. 7. Office to place the appeal on Board only if the applicant proves that the costs are paid to the respondents herein.