1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.F. No.31/2010 in First Appeal St. No.12058/2009 ( Rajendra Golait ..V/s.. Kalawati Yemde + 2 ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.R. Dehspande, counsel for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Mirache, counsel for the respondents. Coram : F.M.REIS, J. Dated : 26th February 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents. This is an application for condonation of delay of 294 days in filing the first appeal. The appeal has been preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Motor Accident's Claim Tribunal dated 15th July 2008 disposing of the application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is admitted fact that the respondent no.1 is the widow and respondent no.2 is the son of the deceased, who met in the accident occurred on 13/6/2007. The applicants were duly served in the said proceedings but failed to remain present and as 2 such the impugned order came to be passed directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the applicant states that he has a good case on merits as according to him the said order is passed without considering that there was an insurance policy in respect of the vehicle which had met with an accident. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant failed to remain present in the proceedings as according to him the applicant felt that the insurance company will protect his interest which proved otherwise. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is delay of 294 days in filing the present appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has disputed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that though the accident occurred in the year 2007 in view of the contentions sought to be raised by the applicant, the respondent nos.1 and 2 are being deprived of the amount to which they are entitled in law. He has further submitted that there was negligence on the part of the applicant in pursuing the legal remedies in time. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the contentions of the parties, I 3 find that the applicant after he was duly served has been negligent in not pursing the legal remedies. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have not filed any reply to the present application. Tough the conduct of the applicant shows that the applicant has taken a casual attitude in dealing with the legal remedies nevertheless considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that in the interest of justice, the applicant cannot be considered to be grossly negligent which disentitles him to be heard on merits in the appeal filed by him. The respondents have not filed any reply attributing any malafides on the part of the applicant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 294 days in filing the first appeal is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent nos.1 and 2 within one week from today. Application stands disposed of. Judge. Tambaskar.