{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5305 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.5657 OF 2007 Raghunath Punju Patil APPLICANT VERSUS Kashiram Dharda Shelar & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. P.S.Patil, Advocate for the applicant Mr. A.B.Gatane, Advocate for respondent No.9 Mr.A.G.Kanade, Advocate for respondent No.7 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 27th August 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 297 days caused in preferring appeal against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule. By the common judgment, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company, however it was directed to made the payment and then to recover the same from the vehicle owner. It appears that, the insurance company had challenged the same common judgment and order by {2} preferring Appeal. It further appears that vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2007, this Court has held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. It also appears that during the pendency of the said appeal, first appeal challenging the impugned judgment along with present application seeking condonation of delay has been preferred by the applicant. It appears that Rule was issued in this application vide order dated 25th April 2006. 2. According to learned counsel for the applicant, except claimants in Claim Petition No.356/2000, none has preferred execution petition. The first appeal is preferred as now the Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to pay the amount of compensation. According to learned counsel representing the Insurance Company, respondent No.9, the applicant was aware of the stand of the Insurance Company and hence he has left the issue of condonation of delay for the Court to decide. Learned counsel for respondent No.7, has asserted that the delay is not properly explained by the applicant. 3. In the light of the rival submissions perused the grounds raised by the applicant seeking condonation of delay. It is contended by the applicant that as the Insurance Company had challenged the impugned judgment and the same was not finally decided, therefore, it was advised to wait till the decision of the appeal preferred by the Insurance company. It also appears that {3} the applicant was wrongly advised and due to the said wrong advice, he could not prefer appeal challenging the impugned judgment at earlier point of time. It is settled principle of law that for the fault of the advocate the litigant must not suffer. In the premise, the delay caused in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned, however on the following conditions. 4. Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “A” and the delay is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- each to the contesting respondents. Payment of costs is a condition precedent. The first appeal is to be registered only after the learned counsel for the applicant produces receipt of payment of costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca5305-07