Nilesh Manikrao Kale v. Sushilabai Rohidas Rathod And ANR

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3355 OF 2020 IN FAST/8036/2020 NILESH MANIKRAO KALE VS ROHIDAS MAMTU RATHOD AND ORS ...

Mrs. Asha D. Rakh, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Pramod F. Patni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Rahul R. Suryawanshi h/f Mr. S. R. Sapkal, Advocates for Respondent No.2.

...

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3359 OF 2020 IN FAST/8156/2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3357 OF 2020 IN FAST/8160/2020 CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.

DATED : 14th OCTOBER, 2022.

PER COURT:- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the notice was not properly served to the applicant, when the matter was tried before the Tribunal. The applicant has sold the offending truck long back to the other person, but that person was not made party before the Tribunal. As proper service was not done on the applicant, the applicant could not remain present before the Tribunal, but the Award is passed against the applicant, which is under challenge by way of First

(2) Appeals.

Hence, requested to allow the applications.

3.

It is contention of the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 that, there are four matters out of same accidents, two death and two injury. There is around 12 years delay for filing the Appeals, which is inordinate delay. The reasons given by the applicant for condoning the delay is not sufficient. Hence, requested to dismiss the applications.

4.

I have heard all the learned counsels.

5.

The Tribunal has fastened the liability on the applicant to pay compensation. The matter was proceeded ex-parte against the applicant. The applicant did not get chance to put fourth his case before the Tribunal. Considering the principles of natural justice, it is necessary to give opportunity to the applicant to put fourth his case. The applicant is claiming that the he had sold the offending truck long back to the other person. The applicant came to know about the order passed against him after filing the execution proceeding against him. These are sufficient reasons to condone the delay. If heavy cost is imposed on the applicant, it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, I pass the following order:

ORDER

a.

The applications for delay condonation are allowed.

(3) b.

The delay for filing the First Appeals is condoned.

c.

Applicant to pay Rs.25,000/- alongwith accrued interest from January 2020.

d.

Appeals be registered subject to removal of office objections, if any.

e.

Civil Applications are disposed of.

(S. G. DIGE) JUDGE Devendra/October-2022