Bombay High Court
ALKABAI ATMARAM JOSHI AND ORSversusVIJAY BUDHO KOLI AND ANR
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The Court held that the condonation of delay is warranted and allowed.
Summary
The applicants, the widow, mother and three minor children of a deceased road‑traffic victim, filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 479‑day delay in filing a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to obtain enhanced compensation. Respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, had been served but did not appear, and Respondent No.2 failed to file any reply. The Court observed that the appeal concerns a death claim affecting vulnerable dependents and that the applicants, being women and minors, lack knowledge of procedural matters. Considering these humanitarian factors, the Court allowed the condonation of delay. It directed that notice be issued to the respondents, including newspaper publication for Respondent No.1, and that the appeal be listed for final hearing at the admission stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the 479‑day delay in filing a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, can be condoned
- Whether humanitarian circumstances involving a widow, mother and minor children justify condonation of procedural delay
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Motor Vehicles Act 1988
- Section 173
- compensation enhancement
- first appeal
- civil application
- widow
- minor children
- motor accident liability
Judgment
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
57 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1382 OF 2012
IN FAST/952/2012
Alkabai Atmaram Joshi And Ors
VERSUS
Vijay Budho Koli And Anr
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bhokarikar Madhav M
None Present for Respondents
…
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Dated : September 29, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of
around 479 days in filing First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal is filed seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. Respondent No.1 though served, has not entered appearance.
Respondent No.2 has not filed a reply to question the veracity of the
averments made in the application for condonation of delay.
3. it is stated in the application that the Appellant Nos.1 and 5 are
the widow and mother, respectively, of the deceased and, being ladies,
do not have knowledge about worldly affairs. Appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4
are minor children of the deceased.
4. Having regard to the fact that the deceased died leaving behind
Page 1 of 2
57 CA 1382-2012
three minor children, a widow and a mother, and as the appeal
pertains to enhancement of compensation awarded on account of a
death claim, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be
allowed.
5. Issue notice to the respondents in First Appeal Stamp No.952 of
2020, returnable in the first week of December.
6. Call for record and proceedings (R&P).
7. Parties are put to notice that the appeal may be heard finally at
the stage of admission.
8. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay
the compensation. Respondent No.1 was required to be served
through newspaper publication on the application for condonation of
delay. Therefore, notice of the appeal be issued to respondent No.1
by newspaper publication in the Dhule edition of daily “Punya
Nagari”.
( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
vj gawade/-.
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…