KAVITA TANAJI CHAVAN AND ORS.versusGAJANAN MANIK CHAVAN AND ORS.

                       1                         45-IA-332-2026 (C)

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 332 OF 2026
                         IN
            FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 721 OF 2026

Kavita Tanaji Chavan & Ors.              ...Applicants
     Vs.
Gajanan Manik Chavan & Ors.              ...Respondents
                              ...
Mr. Tejpal Ingale with Ms. Vrunali Vilankar, Advocate for the
Applicants.
Mr. Nagesh Chavan, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3.
Ms. Vaishali Mohite with Mr. Sourabh Patil, Advocate for the
Respondent No.3.
                              ...

                  CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                   DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

ORDER :


.      Heard both sides.

2.     The Applicants seek condonation of a delay of 4 years and

11 months in preferring the First Appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

3.     It is submitted by Mr. Tejpal Ingle, learned counsel

appearing for the Applicant, that, for the reasons stated in

Paragraph Nos. 4 to 7 of the Application, the delay deserves to be

condoned. It is submitted that the liability extends to the
                       2                          45-IA-332-2026 (C)

Insurance Company also. It is contended that, though notices

were issued to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 apprising them of their

liability to pay the award amount, they have remained non-

responsive.

4.    Mr. Nagesh Chavan, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, would submit that the plea of the

Applicant regarding the meetings and understanding between

the parties is totally false and is denied. He would submit that

the Application deserves to be rejected on account of the incorrect

statements made therein. It is submitted that there is an

inordinate delay in filing the Application and that the reasons

stated therein are not corroborated.

5.    Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Insurance

Company submits that the Application is liable to be rejected.

Learned counsel would submit that notice was issued on

22.02.2022. Thereafter also, there is a delay in preferring the

Appeal.

6.    The averments of the Application upon which the delay is

sought to be condoned have not been controverted by the

Respondents by filing an appropriate reply. There is nothing on
                        3                          45-IA-332-2026 (C)

record to suggest that the reasons stated in the Application are

liable to be discarded. The predominant member of the family

lost his right. The contention of the Applicants that the awarded

amount has not been paid to the Applicants needs to be accepted.

The notice issued by them was not statutory one. I do not find

any mala fide on the part of the Applicant in filing the

Application belatedly. It is desirable to condone the delay.

7.    There is a delay of 4 years and 11 months. The Applicant

Nos. 2 and 3 are major sons of the deceased. It is the case of the

claimants that the deceased was cultivating agricultural land

and he was doing milk business also. Some lapses are

attributable to the Applicants, and for that purpose, I deem it

appropriate to forfeit interest for three years.

8.    The Application is allowed. The delay stands condoned on

the condition that the Applicants shall not be entitled to interest

for three years, in case they succeed in the First Appeal.

9.    Issue notice to Respondents, returnable on 23.10.2026.



FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 721 OF 2026:

10.   Admit.
                           4                          45-IA-332-2026 (C)

11.      Call for record and proceedings. Print is dispensed with.

12.      Parties shall be at liberty to supply copies of paper book.




                                 [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


Suresh