IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 3544 OF 2008 MONALISA PEREIRA ... Applicant Versus SHRI. NARESH NARAYAN GHODGE AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. G. P. Dukle, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 18th November, 2009 P.C. By the above application, the applicant prays for condonation of delay of 204 days in filing the cross objections in First Appeal No.73 of 2008. The reasons for the delay are mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the Civil application. The sum and substance of the reasons, is that the applicant was labouring under an impression that the period of one month which is prescribed for filing cross objections, would start from the date she receives the payment from the respondent no.1 who has been held liable under the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The first cheque issued by the respondent no.1 for the amount of Rs.90,000/- on 11.10.2008 was returned by the applicant's banker, since it was not M.I.C.R. cheque, the second cheque issued by the respondent no.1 was issued a month thereafter, i.e. 11.11.2008 and it is only after encashment, and after she approached her advocate that the applicant realised that there is a delay in filing the cross objections. It is therefore, the case of the applicant that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay. 2. On the other hand, it is the contention on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the tenor of the application indicates that the applicant was aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and therefore, it was all the more necessary for her to file the appeal or cross objections within time and therefore, the reasons cited by the applicant are not bonafide. 3. By that as it may, the reasons mentioned by the applicant in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 can be plausible reasons for the delay which have occurred in filing the cross objections. It is well settled that in matters of condonation of delay, a highly technical approach should be avoided and an approach which furthers the cause of substantive justice should be adopted. The applicant has suffered partial disability on account of which, there is an impediment for her in pursuing her profession of music teacher and hence she seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 4. Considering the reasons mentioned, in my view, Misc. Civil Application is required to be is allowed and is accordingly allowed. Resultantly, the delay of 204 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is accordingly disposed of. R. M. SAVANT, J. lh/.