1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10005/2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.17374/2008 New India Assurance Co. .. APPLICANT VERSUS Sau.Drupadabai Pandit Gavande(Patil) and others .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri D.P.Deshpande,Adv.for applicant Shri K.M.Nagarkar,Adv.for R.3. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 04/08/2009 ORAL ORDER : 1] This is an application for condonation of delay of 799 days caused in filing the present appeal, which arises out of the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon holding the appellants jointly and severally liable alongwith owner of the vehicle to pay an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs towards compensation to the 2 respondents­claimants. 2] The case of the appellants is that the matter was being dealt with by the panel lawyer who failed to communicate the decision rendered on 1/4/2006 in M.A.C.No.476/99 which is questioned in the present appeal. According to the appellant, their lawyer was subsequently removed from the panel in view of certain negligence being noticed on her part. It is further alleged that four claim petitions were filed arising out of the same accident and the claim petition bearing no.409/09 filed at Aurangabad, the appellant insurance company has been exonerated from its liability. It is further contended that when the counsel for the claimants contacted the office of the insurance company for releasing the payment in terms of the award by the Tribunal, the appellant insurance company came to know about the award impugned in this appeal and hence immediately they applied for the certified copy of the award on 22/2/2008 and the certified copy was received on 25/8/2008 and thereafter, after 5/9/2008, the time was spent in obtaining the administrative approval and preparing the appeal. Hence, in short, the case of the applicants is that they were unaware of the award passed on 1/4/2006 till the month of August 2008 when they came to know from the counsel for the claimants that such an award has been passed. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 799 days therefore, needs to be condoned. 3 3] The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 are served with the notice of this Civil Application, however, none appears for respondents 1 and 2. Respondent no.3 alone is represented by learned counsel Shri Nagarkar, who strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel submits that there is no date of knowledge of the award specified in the application, the date on which the application for certified copy was submitted is also not mentioned. As no sufficient cause has been made out in the application for condonation of the delay, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the application is therefore,liable to be dismissed. 4] The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of this Court reported in (2000) Vol­I B.C.R. page 111 Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil and another V/s Godawaribai w/o Laxmansingh Gahirewar and others in support of his claim for condonation of delay. It has been held in this judgment that the Court should have adopted rational common sense approach and the explanation of every day delay does not mean that pedantic approach be adopted. The Court has to see whether there was acceptable/pardonable explanation for seeking condonation of delay . On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relies upon the Division Bench 4 judgment of this Court reported in 2008 Vol­IV All M.R. 856 in support of his plea that the delay which caused because of official hassle and approval at different levels, can hardly justify condonation of the delay. 5] The Supreme Court has in its decision reported in AIR 2002 S.C.1201 Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and others V/s Gobardhan Sao and others, has held that acceptance of explanation is the rule and rejection is an exception. It has further been held that the Court could not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the application. It has further been held that by pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter, the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. 6] Keeping in view, the law laid down by the Apex Court and by this Court, which is referred to above, this application will have to be decided. The reason in the application is not with regard to the administrative delay but the substantial part of period of delay relates to the non communication of the decision of the Tribunal by the panel counsel. The steps taken against the panel counsel have also been 5 stated in the application. Apart from that, on merits, it seems that the insurance company has been exonerated in another claim petition arising out of the same accident. The amount of award in question is of Rs.2 Lakhs. There is no reason to believe that the insurance company was either negligent in prosecuting the case or the delay caused is not genuine and bonafide. The judgment of the Division Bench relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent does not at all apply in the present case for the reason that it is not on administrative ground that the delay is sought to be condoned but it is on account of the lapse or negligence on the part of the counsel for the appellant that the delay has occurred. The very short period from 25/8/2008 to 5/9/2008 was spent in getting approval and preparing the appeal. In view of this, I am satisfied that the appellant has made out the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence delay of 799 days caused in filing present appeal is condoned. However, it shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/­ (Rs.Five Thousand only) to the claimants. The application thus stands disposed of accordingly. [R.K.DESHPANDE] JUDG umg/ca4576­06