FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11596 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 23531 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard Shri Pokharkar, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri N.C Garud, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Though respondent No.2 is served, nobody appears. This application is for condonation of delay of 518 days caused in filing the appeal. The applicants have preferred the above appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 9.1.2008, passed by the learned Chairman, M.A.C.T. Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No. 11 of 2002. The applicants claimed compensation of Rs.8.00 lacs on account of accidental death of Babanrao Antre on 22.11.2001. As against the claim of Rs.8.00 lacs, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,48,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 2.1.2002 till the date of realization. Respondent No.1 herein was directed to pay the amount and respondent No.2 Insurance company is exonerated. In the application, it is averred that the applicants did not receive amount awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the respondent did not deposit the said amount. Babanrao was the only earning hand in the family. After death of Babanrao, the applicants went to reside at applicant No.1's maternal uncle. Maternal brother of applicant No.1 took applicant No.2 with him at Pune, where he is residing. Applicant No.3 is presently working in the State of Kerala. It is further averred that the applicant No.2 is presently working as labourer at Pune for survival and applicant No.1 is illiterate lady. The applicant No.3 came from Kerala for visiting his mother, applicant No.1 and at that time applicant No.1 informed him about passing of the award and thereafter the present appeal is filed. In the process the delay is occurred. Shri Garud, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the applicants have not satisfactorily explained the delay and delay is inordinate. He submitted that the application deserves to be rejected. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the controversy raised in the present matter, in my opinion, the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Respondent No.1 did not deposit N.F.L. amount as ordered under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is death of the earning member in the family. In these circumstances, the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were constrained to work at different places. In view of this, in my opinion, the applicants have sufficiently explained the delay and delay deserves to be condoned. Hence, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B" with no order as to costs. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) Date:17.12.2009. rlj/ FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 23531 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 Pokharkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri N.C Garud, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Issue notice to the respondent No.2 returnable after six weeks. Notice to indicate that the court may endeavour to decide the appeal finally at the admission stage. Call for record and proceeding of the case, in the meanwhile. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) Date:17.12.2009. rlj/