1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1050 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 1502 OF 2006 Bhagwant s/o Bapurao Biradar & ors. ..Applicants (Original Claimants) VERSUS Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Latur Division, Latur & ors. ..Respondents ..... Shri S.V.Chandole, advocate holding for Shri V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the applicants Smt. Manjusha Ambekar, advocate holding for Smt. R.R.Reddy, advocate for respondent no.1 Shri A.B.Gatne, advocate for respondent no.4 absent. Application against Resp.nos. 2 and 3 dismissed. ..... 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 The applicants (original claimants) have preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 203 days occurred 2 in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 8.4.2005, rendered by learned Ex-officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udgir, in M.A.C.P. No. 8 of 2002 awarding insufficient amount of compensation of Rs. 2,61,382/- to the applicants out of the claim amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. 3 The applicants state that after passing the above referred judgment and award on 8.4.2005, the applicants received the cheque dated 9.12.2005, which was encashed on 13.12.2005. Thereafter the applicants applied for certified copies and after getting the certified copies on 23.1.2006, the appeal was filed on 25.1.2006 through advocate, which resulted in to 203 days delay in filing accompanying First Appeal. The applicant submits that they are poor persons and their financial condition is not good and due to paucity of funds, they could not file the accompanying First Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. They could file the First Appeal only after receipt of cheque of awarded amount. Hence, it is submitted that the delay caused in filing accompanying First Appeal is not intentional, willful or intentional. 4 Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the 3 present application vehemently and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 5 Considering the averments in the application and also considering the rival submissions, it appears that the applicant has explained the reasons for delay properly and satisfactory in para nos. 2 and 3 of the present application and the delay occurred in filing accompanying First Appeal is not intentional, willful or deliberate and the said delay occurred due to poor financial condition of the applicant and also due to paucity of funds. Moreover, opportunity is required to be given to the applicant to prosecute the accompanying First Appeal on merits and the respondents would get opportunity to contest the same on merits if present application is allowed. 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 203 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/ca1050.06 4