1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1541 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (Stamp) No.1627 OF 2007 United India Insurance Co.Ltd. applicant-appellant versus Savita Sanjay Neel and others respondents-claimants ------ Shri A.B. Gatne, Advocate for the applicant-appellant Shri Prashant Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 although served through paper publication, are absent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1720 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (St.)NO.1619 OF 2007 United India Insurance Co.Ltd. applicant-appellant versus Anita Dnyaneshwar Nehval & ors. respondents-claimants ------- Shri A.B. Gatne, Advocate for the applicant-appellant Shri Prashant Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 although served through paper publication, are absent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1725 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO.1623 OF 2007 United India Insurance Co.Ltd. applicant-appellant versus Sitabai Rama Chitale and ors. respondents-claimants Shri A.B. Gatne, Advocate for the applicant-appellant ------ Shri A.B.Gatne,Advocate, for the applicant. Shri V.P.Latange, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (absent). Shri B.V. Wagh, Advocate for Respondent No.7 (absent). Respondent No.8 absent, although served through paper publication. 2 Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 27th August, 2010 P.C. 01. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant and Shri Prashant Deshmukh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in C.A. Nos.1541 OF 2007 and 1720 OF 2007. 02. These are the three applications preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 45 days and 40 days caused in filing first appeals under stamp numbers, challenging the judgments and awards dated 30.8.2006 separately passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in M.A.C.P. Nos. 731 of 2001, 732 of 2001 and 616 of 2001. 03. Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the applications vehemently, and submitted that the applications do not bear substance and are devoid of any merits and, therefore, same deserve to be rejected. 04. After considering the rival submissions advanced, and for the reasons stated in the applications, it appears that the applicant has explained the delay satisfactorily. It also appears 3 that the said delay is not wilful, deliberate and intentional and certainly it is not inordinate and, therefore, same deserves to be allowed. 05. In the result, applications are allowed and the delay caused in filing the accompanying first appeals which are on stamp numbers, stands condoned. Said first appeals be registered and numbered. Present applications stand disposed of, accordingly. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) pnd/ca1541.07