0502caf1861.09.odt 1/2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CAF NO. 1861/2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 8577 OF 2009 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kisanrao Amzare & 2 others) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order C ORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATED : 05th February, 2010. 1. Heard Mr. A. J. Pophlay, learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. V. M. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the non-applicant/respondent No.1. 2 This is an application for condonation of delay of 532 days in preferring the first appeal against the judgment and award dated 24/9/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati whereby the claim of respondent No. 1 was partly allowed. The delay in filing the appeal was on account of the fact that the applicant on legal advice filed a review application before the Tribunal on 30/10/2007, within the time prescribed. The review application came to be dismissed on 23/01/2009 and immediately thereafter, the applicant obtained the certified copy and the appeal came to be filed on the date of the reopening of the Summer Vacation, before this Court. The applicant states that the act is bonafide and there are no malafides of the appellant to file the appeal belatedly. 0502caf1861.09.odt 2/2 3. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 vehemently opposed the delay to be condoned. It is his contention that there was gross delay on the part of the applicant in approaching this Court. It is his contention that the applicant has not satisfactorily explained the delay. 4. On hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the respondents have not disputed that the review application was filed by the applicant on 30/10/2007 and the same came to be dismissed on 23/01/2009. The respondents have not attributed any malafides on the part of the applicant in approaching this Court belatedly. Though there might be inaction on the part of the applicant in not approaching this Court within a time, unfortunately, it cannot be said that there are gross negligence in preferring the appeal, when the applicant contends that they had filed review application on the legal advice. This contention averred by the applicant has not been disputed by respondent No. 1. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained and as such the delay of 532 days in filing the first appeal is to be condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred only) to respondent No. 1. 6. The application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE wwl