1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.505 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.22924 OF 2007 The United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Office, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, Aurangabad. ... APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Ashabai alias Rukmin w/o Bhagwan Gaike, Age 30 years, Occ. Household, R/o Kendrewadi, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. 2. Ganga d/o Bhagwan Gaike, Age 16 years, Occ. Education. 3. Chandrabhaga d/o Bhagwan Gaike, Age 14 years, Occ. Education. 4. Meera d/o Bhagwan Gaike, Age 11 years, Occ. Education. 5. Mandakini d/o Bhagwan Gaike, Age 8 years, Occ. Education. 6. Rushikesh s/o Bhagwan Gaike, Age 7 years, Occ. Education. 7. Suvarnamala d/o Bhagwan Gaike, Age 4 years, Occ. Nil. 2 8. Rameshwar s/o Bhagwan Gaike, Age 2 years, Occ. Nil. Nos.2 to 8 u/g of Ashabai alias Rukmin w/o Bhagwan Gaike, R/o as above. 9. Ashok s/o Govindrao Hulgunde, Age major, Occ. Auto Rickshaw owner, R/o Hamalgali, Mangalwarpeth, Ambajogai, Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed. 10. Sopan s/o Nivruti Gayke, Age major, Shri V.D. Shinde Occ. Agri. R/o Kendrewadi, Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri A.S. Osmanpurkar, Advocate holding for Shri S.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for R.Nos.1 to 10 ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has preferred the present application 3 for condonation of delay of 9 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the judgment and award rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambajogai, District Beed in Case No.71/2006 on 28.8.2004. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay of 9 days is minor and negligible and applicant has explained the said delay in paragraph No.2 of the present application and further submitted that the said delay is not deliberate, willful or intentional and certainly not inordinate and, therefore, same be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the delay of 9 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not bonafide and present application bears no substance and, therefore, same be rejected. 5. Considering the averments in the present application and also considering the rival contentions, at the outset, it is seen that the applicant has given the explanation for the delay of 9 days in paragraph No.2 of the application and it appears that, the applicant has explained the said delay satisfactorily. Moreover, the said delay of 9 days is minor and negligible and same does 4 not appear to be willful, deliberate and intentional and certainly not inordinate and hence, same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 6. In the circumstances, present application deserves to be allowed and same stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) thereof and 9 days delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned and accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca505.08