1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10128 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 17970 OF 2006 National Insurance Company Limited, having its Head Office at Calcutta, Branch office at Latur ..Applicant VERSUS Jafar s/o Nawazasaheb Shaikh & ors. ..Respondents ..... Shri S.L.Kulkarni, advocate for the applicant Shri R.B.Deshmukh, advocate for respondent no.1 Shri A.R.Kale,advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 Respondent no.4 deleted Application dismissed against respondent no.5 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard respective counsel for the parties. 2 2 The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 152 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 21.12.2005 rendered by learned Adhoc Additional District Judge and Ex-officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udgir, in M.A.C.P. No.49 of 2002 (M.A.C.P.No. 422 of 1999 [old ]), awarding compensation amount of Rs. 89,300/- with interest,out of the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the original claimant. 3 The applicant states that the applicant applied for certified copies on 31.12.2005, which were delivered to him on 31.1.2006 and thereafter time was consumed in official communication to obtain sanction for filing First Appeal from the Divisional Office and Regional Office of the applicant Company. Hence, the applicant submits that the delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not deliberate, willful and intentional and, therefore, same be condoned in the interest of justice. 4 Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that consumption of time in official communication is no ground. It is further submitted that the applicant has failed to explain the day-to-day 3 account of delay. Hence, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 4 Considering the averments in the application and also considering the rival submissions, it is apparent that the applicant has stated the reasons for causing the delay in filing the accompanying First Appeal in para nos. 5 and 6 of the application and apparently the applicant has explained the said delay properly and satisfactorily. Moreover, it also appears that the said delay of 152 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not willful, deliberate or intentional and apparently is not inordinate. 6 In the circumstances, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly same stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and delay of 152 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal stands condoned. The accompanying First Appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca10128.06 4