1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9631 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 19539 OF 2006 Parvatibai w/o Wamanrao Thombre & ors ..Applicants VERSUS Sattarkhan Taherkhan Pathn & anr. ..Respondents ..... Shri Sachin Deshmukh, advocate for the applicants Application dismissed against respondent no.1 Shri S.L.Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no.2 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard respective counsel for the parties. 2 The applicants have preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 169 days occurred in filing the 2 accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 3.1.2006, rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli, in M.A.C.P. No. 3 of 2004 awarding compensation amount of Rs.2,52,000/- and interest thereon, out of claim amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and interest thereon. 3 The applicants submit that the applicants were unaware of legal technicalities and limitation for preferring the accompanying First Appeal. The applicants also submit that applicant no.1 is old lady and she was required to look after the family and time was consumed in collecting requisite court fee, since she was required to undergo medical treatment. Hence, applicants pray that the delay of 169 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal be condoned in the interest of justice. 4 Learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the applicants have failed to explain the delay satisfactorily and hence, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 4 Considering the averments in the application and also considering the rival submissions, it appears that the applicant has stated the reasons for causing the delay in filing the 3 accompanying First Appeal in para no.2 of the application and the reason appears to be satisfactory. Moreover the delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal does not appear to be willful, deliberate or intentional, and hence same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice to enable the applicants to prosecute the accompanying First Appeal on merits and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, since the respondents would get an opportunity to contest the same. 5 In the circumstances, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly same stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and delay of 169 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned. The accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca9631.06