1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CA Nos.5829/2009; 10083/2008 IN FA ST.NO.17740/2008. Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court s’ Orders or directions and Court’s or Judge’s Order Registrar s Orders.. ’ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 22nd JUNE, 2009 --- P.C.:- 1) Heard learned Counsel. The insurance Company/appellant has t deposit amount of Rs.4,20,729/-, such permission to the appellant insurance company is granted, which it will do within fifteen days. 2) The claimants have by present application requested for discharge of the said amount in their favour, claiming that they are put in financial crunch and in dire need of the money as the sole earner Machindra is no more and the family is put to agony. The appellants being 72 and 65 years old. 3) Mr.Upadhye for the insurance company has invited my attention to paragraph 7 of the 2 judgment under challenge, where the owner accepted the deceased to be drawing monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. However, the learned Judge observed that the deceased will definitely get Rs. 4,000/- per month. This part is objected to by the counsel for the insurance company. 4) At this stage of the matter, without adverting to the merits and demerits in the order, rational amount which the claimant can withdraw on the cheque being deposited by insurance company being realized, will be Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs). From this amount, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to be put in Fixed Deposit for a period of seven years in the name of minors – Taramati; Vishal Ashwini and Diksha in equal proportion, showing Aruna, widow of Machindra to be their guardian. 5) The remaining amount of Rs. 1,20,729/- (Rupees One lakh twenty thousand seven hundred and twenty nine) be also deposited in nationalized bank for a period of seven years. Application allowed in above terms. 3 6) By CA No.10083/2008 the appellant/insurance company seeks to condone the delay of 237 days in causing to file appeal. The insurance company feels aggrieved by the order under challenge recorded by CJSD Beed, in Application (WC) No.1/2007. Considering the controversy involved, where the learned Judge has notionally treated the income of deceased to be Rs. 4,000/-, the apprehension felt by the insurance company, cannot be said to be in the air. That apart, the delay of 237 days is not deliberate, as could be seen from paragraph 3 of the application. The procedural aspect in the matter cannot be obliterated. Delay condoned. Application allowed; 7) Notice to respondents in the appeal. Mr. Karande waives service for respondent nos. 1 to 7. S.O to 15th December, 2009. Call R. and P. The appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/bdv/ca5829.09