High Court
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) 917 CA 10234 OF 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD917 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10234 OF 2025 (Withdrawal) IN FAST/1585/2014SWAYAM DINKAR KULKARNI.VERSUSTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE NANDED AND ANR....Mr. H. I. Pathan, Advocate for ApplicantMr. A. A. Puranik h/f. Mr. A. S. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.1WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1028 OF 2014 IN FAST/1585/2014THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.VERSUSSHAILAJA DINKAR KULKARNI AND OTHERSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1029 OF 2014 IN FAST/1585/2014THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.VERSUSSHAILAJA DINKAR KULKARNI AND OTHERS…CORAM:AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.DATE:10.10.2025PER COURT :-CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10234 OF 2025 (Withdrawal)1.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 01.03.2013
Legal Reasoning
( 2 ) 917 CA 10234 OF 2025passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded, in M.A.C.P.No.112 of 2007, the Insurance Company has filed the present First Appeal.2.The Insurance Company has deposited the entire payable awardamount together with accrued interest in this Court pursuant to the staygranted by this Court.3.Mr. Pathan, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that whileother claimants have withdrawn a portion of the deposited amount, the sharepertaining to original claimant no.5, namely Swayam s/o Dinkar Kulkarni,remains unwithdrawn on account of a rider imposed by the Tribunal, directingthat an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be fixed in the name of Swayam until heattains majority. Mr. Pathan further submits that this Court, vide order dated17th April 2015, directed the deposit of Rs.2,80,000/- in fixed deposit inSwayam’s name until he attained the age of majority. It is submitted that thisamount includes the earlier sum of Rs.1,00,000/- directed by the Tribunal. Mr.Pathan submits that original claimant no.5, Swayam, has now attained the ageof majority, and his school record evidencing the same is attached with theapplication. He further submits that some amount is now required foreducational purposes.4.Mr. A. A. Puranik, holding for Mr. A. S. Deshpande, learnedcounsel for the Insurance Company, submits that instead of allowing ( 3 ) 917 CA 10234 OF 2025withdrawal of the entire deposited amount, a portion may be allowed to bewithdrawn by original claimant no.5, in order to protect the interests of theInsurance Company.5.In view of this, I pass the following order :-ORDERa.Civil Application is partly allowed.b.The original claimant no.5-Swayam is permitted towithdraw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with accrued interestthereon out of the amount pending in this Court.c.Civil Application stands disposed of.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1028 OF 2014 IN FAST/1585/2014 (Delay)1.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 01.03.2013passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded, in M.A.C.P.No.112 of 2007, the Insurance Company has filed the present First Appeal.2.Mr. A. A. Puranik, holding for Mr. A. S. Deshpande, learnedcounsel for the applicant, submits that a delay of 193 days has occurred infiling the First Appeal, and hence, the present Civil Application is filed,demonstrating justifiable reasons for condoning the delay. He submits thatafter receiving certified copies of the impugned judgment and award, aproposal was made to the higher authorities seeking approval for filing theappeal, as per company policy. The matter was then placed before the ( 4 ) 917 CA 10234 OF 2025committee responsible for deciding such matters. Upon the committee’sdecision to file the appeal, the papers were forwarded for filing, andsubsequently, the matter was handed over to the counsel, who raised arequisition for the statutory amount and court fees. It is submitted thatimmediately upon receipt of the statutory amount and court fees, the appealwas filed. He further submits that the applicant is a subsidiary of a GeneralInsurance Company and a public body. He further submits that he would notadvocate an ordinary reason for delays, he points out that proceduralrequirements, including multiple levels of approval and sanction of funds,resulted in time being consumed. He also submits that the Insurance Companyhas deposited the entire awarded amount together with interest in this Courtpursuant to an earlier order. A substantial portion of the amount has alreadybeen withdrawn by the claimants. He argues that no prejudice has beencaused to the claimants due to the delay in filing the appeal. Furthermore, theissue of the Insurance Company’s liability to indemnify the insured is underchallenge in the appeal and needs adjudication on merits.3.Mr. Pathan, learned counsel for the respondents, vehementlyopposes the application, contending that administrative exigencies can neverconstitute a justifiable ground for delay. He places reliance on a judgment inthe case of State of Maharashtra vs. Vithu reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J., ( 5 ) 917 CA 10234 OF 2025delivered by this Court, wherein it was held that delays due to administrativereasons need not be condoned. He, therefore, prays for rejection of theapplication.4.Having heard the parties, I find that the delay is properlyexplained by the learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company. Thedelay is not inordinate, and the applicant has meticulously demonstrated thereasons behind the same. It also cannot be overlooked that the entire awardamount, along with accrued interest, has already been deposited in this Court,and substantial withdrawals have been made by the claimants. Thus, theinterest of the claimants stands protected. There could be no dispute todisagree with the preposition laid down in the case cited by the learnedcounsel for the claimants. The case necessarily relates to land acquisitionproceedings wherein this Court has passed the said order. Mr. Puranik makes areference to recent pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the caseof Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased through LRs.) & Ors. V/s Union of India and ors.[Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015 dtd.09-10-2023] wherein dealing with thedelay condonation application in land acquisition proceedings, the Hon’bleSupreme Court has taken into account the administrative exigencies tocondone the delay. In my view, in the present case, the applicant has made outa case for condonation of delay not only on the point of administrative ( 6 ) 917 CA 10234 OF 2025exigencies but also demonstrating the issue raised in the First Appeal forwhich hearing of the parties is necessary.5.In view of this, I pass the following order :ORDERa.Civil Application is allowed.b.Delay of 193 days caused in filing the First Appeal is herebycondoned. c.Registry to register the First Appeal, subject to removal ofoffice objections, if any.d.Civil Application stands disposed of.FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.1585 OF 2014 1.Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 21.11.2025.2.Mr. Pathan, learned counsel waives service of notice forrespondent nos.1 to 5.3.The matter be listed after service of notice is complete. In themeantime, applicant/appellant shall take recourse to the provisionsenumerated in Chapter II of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,corresponding to the stage and requirement of matter.[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]PRW