1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICTION NO.12456 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.22949 OF 2008 Vinod Ramchandra Mali Applicant V/s Ramesh Damu Talware Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. L. Choudhari, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S. D. Tambat-Dhumal, Advocate for respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) DATE : 29th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1. This is an application for condonation of 285 days delay caused in filing the appeal, challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Dhule in W.C.A. No.19/2004 to the extent it relates to rejection of claim of the appellant- claimant. The claimant has explained the delay in paragraph No.7 of the application as under :- “The applicant submits that, in view of the above referred facts and circumstances, due to the said accident, as the applicant has become 50% disabled by his right eyesight, as such, the applicant could not do any work for his livelihood and 2 permanently staying in his residential house only. It is further submitted that, therefore, the applicant is facing financial and economical crises, due to the said accident and for the said reason, the said delay has been occurred in filing the present appeal, which is not intentional and deliberate one. The applicant further submits that, taking into consideration the said fact, as such, the applicant could not filed the present first appeal within a period of limitation as prescribed under the law.” 2. In response to this civil application, the respondent has filed reply and in paragraph no.3, the application is opposed as under :- “I state that, the grounds mentioned in the civil application for condonation of delay does not create any fact to condone the delay so caused. Because it is fact of record that in the alleged accident the applicant sustained 30% injury for which the court below awarded compensation. After causing injury the considerable period is also lapsed and the injury is recovered even the applicant with intention and deliberately did not file the appeal in time. If he think then he could file the first appeal in time, but he has taken serious note and as per his convenient, the first appeal is filed. The said delay is intentional, need not to be condoned.” 3. The facts stated in para no.7 of the Civil application are not at 3 all disputed by the respondents the only ground to defend is that the facts as stated, do not make out the case for sufficient cause. After going through the avernments made in para no.7, I am satisfied that the sufficient explanation is offered for condonation of delay. Hence delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. The civil application is stands disposed of. (R.K. DESHPANDE) JUDGE GAS/ca12456.08