IA 241 26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 241 OF 2026 IN FIRST STAMP (ST) NO. 1470 OF 2026 Shri. Raghunath Maruti Chougule … Applicant VERSUS Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Sangli Depot and others … Respondents … Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Avesh Ghadge a/w Adv. Aditya Ghadge Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Shrikrishna Dandge ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 24.08.2026 FINAL ORDER : Heard both sides. 2. The applicant seeks to condone delay of 17 years and 238 days in presenting appeal against the judgment and award dated 30.03.2007. The reliance is sought on the grounds mentioned in the application. Additionally, it is submitted that the applicant is ready to give up interest for the delayed period. He had undergone brain surgery before the accident and was disabled. He lost his earning son. There is nobody in the family to assist him. He was devastated due to the deaths of the blood relatives and is not in a position to prefer appeal. It is reiterated that the financial condition was precarious. 3. The counsel for the Insurance Company would rely upon the affidavit in reply, denying averments of the application. It is submitted that applicant 1/3 IA 241 26.odt received Rs. 50,000/- towards ‘no fault liability’, Rs. 40,000/- by the interim orders passed in First Appeal No. 14/2008 and Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest. It has come on record that he has irrigated land and milk business. The appellant is stated to have appeared as a witness. His mental and physical condition was sound. The reasons assigned for condonation of delay are after thought. 4. Present appeal is filed on 20.02.2026 against the judgment and award dated 30.03.2007 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- with interest. Undisputedly, the owner of the vehicle had preferred first appeal No. 14/2008. By interim order dated 09.01.2008 the applicant was permitted to receive amount of Rs. 40,000/-. The appeal was allowed on 03.05.2024 exonerating the owner of the vehicle and holding the Insurance Company liable. 5. The applicant was given Rs. 50,000/- towards ‘no fault liability’, Rs. 40,000/- by interim order dated 09.01.2008 and Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest after decision rendered in First Appeal no. 14/2008. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that irrigated agricultural land and milk business was available to earn the livelihood. Deceased Dipak was looking after the cultivation and business. The applicant should have placed on record better particulars of agricultural land, cultivation and milk business. I find that the plea that the financial condition of the applicant was precarious cannot be accepted. 6. There is inordinate delay of 17 years and 238 days. The appellant had undergone surgery prior to the accident. He had filed claim petition and adduced his own evidence before the Tribunal. It is not a case that the applicant was bed ridden and there is nobody to look after him. He could prosecute the claim petition, either himself or with the assistance of some persons. No reasons are forthcoming as to what prevented him from promptly filing appeal, atleast after decision on 03.05.2024 in First Appeal 2/3 IA 241 26.odt No. 14/2008. I find no merit in the contention that applicant was devastated and unable to prefer appeal. 7. The app licant waited for the decision in First Appeal No. 14/2008. When the respondent-Insurance Company is saddled with the compensation, the applicant has ventured to file present appeal. The grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are not convincing. 8. Reliance is placed by the applicant on the judgment of Thakor Tinuji @ Tinaji Kamshiji Vs. Nanalal M. Thakker & anr.; in Civil Appeal No. 3871/2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7473/2025), decided on 20.04.2025. In that case, the Supreme Court had dealt with condonation of delay of 10 years. The Apex Court thought it fit to condone delay in given facts and circumstances narrated in paragraph no. 3 of the judgment. There cannot be a straightjacket formula for condonation of delay. The facts are distinguishable and the judgment will not help the applicant. 9. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Pahlad and another Vs. Jagatpal and others; 2026 ACJ 751. In that case, delay of about 3 years was sought to be condoned. Under peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand, I find that delay of 17 years and 238 days is inordinate. It cannot be condoned, though appellant is ready to give up interest for the delayed period. 10. The Interim Application is rejected. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 3/3