1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION CAF NO.918/2011 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.5567/2011 SHEIKH HAIDAR SHEIKH ABDULLA AND ANOTHER ..VS.. SMT. REKHABAI RUSHIKESH MESHRAM AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Shashikant Borkar advocate for appellants Shri V.P. Marpakwar, advocate for Shri R.R. Johrapurkar, advocate for respondent no. 6 CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE : 13.09.2011. Heard. There is a delay of 1765 days in filing the appeal, i.e. about five years. The appeal is against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara. In the accident two employees of the Agricultural Department had expired. It is the contention of the Insurance Company that the jeep namely the vehicle belonging to the appellants was hired by the officers of the said department of the State for transporting budding plants from Kurkheda to Tumsar and the Insurance policy did not cover the hiring of jeep. That is why, according to the Insurance Company no award was passed against the Insurance Company, but was passed against the appellants/ owners of the jeep in question. In the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, there are several serious allegations made against the advocate for claimants. The concerned advocate was given an opportunity to file his affidavit in response to the allegations made in this application. He has filed an affidavit through Advocate Marpakwar. The ground for condonation of delay is that the advocate for the appellant i.e. the said advocate who was engaged by 2 the appellants, did not represent the appellants, and instead he represented the other side and thus obtained a fraudulent or collusive award. According to the appellants they did not get opportunity to defend properly due to the above events. It is not possible for this court to comment on the allegations made by the appellants or about the conduct of the advocate and therefore, this court refrains from entering into the said controversy. However, the fact remains that the appellants did not get an opportunity to defend their case effectively in the trial court. The delay in filing the appeal is of five years. Therefore, the following order would subserve the ends of justice: The delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to deposit of costs of Rs.15,000/- in this court, payable to the respondents no.1 to 5. Costs shall be deposited within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he would deposit the amount to the extent of 50% of the amount under the award passed in this case, in this court, since the appellants do not have the means to deposit the entire amount under the award. The statement made by Mr. Borkar on behalf of the appellants to deposit 50% of the amount under award in this court within a period of 10 weeks is accepted. Upon receipt of the amount, the same shall not be disbursed until further orders. Issue fresh notices to the respondents no.1 to 5 who have though been served, have not chosen to appear. The delay condoned. Application stands disposed. Office to proceed. JUDGE SMP