20-IA-10570-2025 (C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10570 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 95303 OF 2020 Vishwas Bandu Patil ...Applicant Versus Pradeep Shivaji Lad And Anr. ...Respondents ….. Adv. Aditya Ghadge h/f Adv. Akshay Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant. Adv. Sachin Phatak (through V. C.) a/w Adv. Sayali Shelake, Advocate for Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. ….. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : By this application, the applicant seeks to condone delay of 5 years and 183 days in preferring appeal for enhancement of the compensation, challenging judgment and award dated 06.02.2015. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is sought to be condoned. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that his client is ready to forego interest for the delayed period. The delay is stated to be unintentional. The reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court for condonation of delay in case the claimant is ZIP 1 of 4 20-IA-10570-2025 (C).doc ready to forego the interest. Those judgments are Pahlad & Anr. Versus Jagatpal and Ors.1 and Thakor Tinuji @ Tinaji Kamshiji Versus Nanalal M. Thakker & Anr. (Arising out of Special Leave Petition © No. 7473 of 2025.) 3. The application is contested by the respondent No.2 - Insurance company. The learned counsel submits that the delay is inordinate and the reasons are scanty. It being first appeal, the over-liberal approach is deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He places reliance on judgment passed by learned single judge of Karnataka High Court in case of Cheluvaraju Versus Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.2, which inter alia relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Esha Bhattacharjee Versus Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 and Basawaraj Versus Land Acquisition Officer4. 4. The averments of the application have gone uncontroverted. I have gone through the contents of the application. There is nothing on the record to suggest any oblique motive on the part of the applicant to prefer appeal belatedly. 5. The submission of the counsel for the applicant is well-founded that his client is ready to give up interest for the delayed period. Hence, it is desirable to condone the delay. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by the applicant corroborates the submissions. 1 2026 ACJ 751. 2 2016 ACJ 2039. 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649. 4 (2013) 14 SCC 81. ZIP 2 of 4 20-IA-10570-2025 (C).doc 6. I have gone through the judgment rendered by the learned single judge of Karnataka High Court, which inter alia refers to couple of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited by the applicant is of the latter point of time. It has reiterated the consistent view being taken. I propose to follow those principles than to follow the view taken by the learned single judge of Karnataka High Court. 7. It needs mention that the respondent No.1 is the contesting party who has not caused appearance despite valid service. The respondent No.2 - insurance company is exonerated from the liability. The liability is imposed upon the respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle by the impugned judgment. In such a situation, though the respondent - Insurance company contested the application for condonation of delay, the contesting party has preferred not to appear before this Court. 8. Interim application is allowed and the delay stands condoned on the condition that the applicant shall not be entitled to interest for 5 years and 183 days in case he succeeds in the appeal. FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 95303 OF 2020 9. Admit. 10. Mr. Sachin Phatak, learned counsel, waives notice for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. ZIP 3 of 4 20-IA-10570-2025 (C).doc 11. Call for record and proceeding. 12. Print is dispensed with. 13. Parties shall be at liberty to file compilation of documents. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] ZIP 4 of 4