1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5299 OF 2007 WITH FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.10772 OF 2007 Hanumant S/o.Pandhari Kamble APPLICANT VERSUS Nayamkhan S/o.Sardarkhan and others RESPONDENTS Mr.A.N.Gaddime h/f. Mr.V.D.Gunale, learned counsel for applicant. Respondent no.2 is deleted. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 05/09/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present civil application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condonation of 72 days in preferring first appeal against the judgment and award passed by The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 277/2003 dated 18/01/2007. 2. Inspite of service, the respondents failed to appear in the present civil application. 2 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner applicant. 4. It is not under dispute that about the judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No.277/2003 dated 18/01/2007 as per the contention of the applicant, the advocate for applicant informed him about passing of judgment and award to the applicant. Thus the petitioner applicant is aware about the date of judgment and award. Inspite of this, it appears that the application was filed to obtain the certified copies of judgment and award on 30/05/2007 i.e. after the period of limitation of 90 days. According to the learned advocate appearing for the applicant that due to poor financial condition of the applicant, he was informed to prefer the appeal within the stipulated period. On careful perusal of the contents of para no.3 wherein it is stated that the applicant was collecting the money to bear the expenses to prefer the appeal, the fact remains that no grounds are mentioned in the application as to why the application for obtaining certified copies of judgment and award was not filed within time and if no reasons are mentioned in the application to that effect, then if the copies are collected at the late stage and then the delay caused, it can not be said that the just and sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay. Thus the application for condonation of delay is devoid of any merit and require to be rejected. Otherwise also, perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal do not appear to be perverse as it is stated across the bar that the petitioner has spent about Rs.50,000/- towards the medical expenses and to remove his dis-ability. On the query put up 3 to the advocate for applicant whether any receipts were produced before the Tribunal about the purchase of medicine which were rejected by the Tribunal to which it is answered as well as the judgment of the Tribunal and clearly indicates that no such documentary evidence was tendered before the Tribunal while deciding the accident claim of the applicant petitioner. In the present case, no documentary evidence about the medical expenses is produced, so it is hard to accept that mere oral evidence in absence of any documentary proof is not accepted by the Tribunal and came to the erroneous conclusion in not granting compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Thus on these grounds also there are no merits. In the premise, the civil application for condonation of delay is devoid of any merit, and liable to be rejected. Accordingly this civil application stands rejected with no order as to costs. Consequently, the accompanied appeal will also stands dismissed. The applicant is entitled for refund of the requisite court fee as per rules. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEP 2009/ca5299-07