Bombay High Court

DNYANESHWAR BHAUSAHEB GAGAREversusRAMJAN ISMAIL SHAIKH AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The order rejecting the condonation of delay is quashed and set aside, allowing restoration of the claim petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Dnyaneshwar Bhausaheb Gagare, filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP No.11/2008) for compensation, but it was dismissed for non‑prosecution after he could not attend proceedings due to his appointment as a legal officer. He later obtained a certified copy of the dismissal order and applied to set aside the dismissal and sought condonation of a 207‑day delay in filing a restoration application. The Member of the Maharashtra Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) rejected the condonation application, which the petitioner challenged by filing a writ petition. Justice Thombre held that the Tribunal adopted a hyper‑technical approach and should have applied a liberal view, granting condonation of delay and restoring the claim petition. Consequently, the order dated 09‑07‑2014 rejecting the condonation application was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed, with a clarification that no interest would be payable if the claim is later allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in restoring the original MACP should be set aside.
Whether the Tribunal must adopt a liberal approach in granting restoration despite the petitioner's delay.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest for the period between dismissal of the claim petition and the present date.

Subjects

Motor Accident Claim Petition
condonation of delay
restoration of claim
tribunal procedure
liberal interpretation
interest

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:10161
8-WP-8416-2017.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

67 WRIT PETITION NO. 8416 OF 2017

Dnyaneshwar Bhausaheb Gagare
VERSUS
Mr. Ramjan Ismail Shaikh and Anr.
…..
Mr. Pravin S. Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. M. M. Ambhore, Advocate for Respondent No.2
…..
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 09.03.2026
PER COURT :

1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Dighe for the petitioner and the
learned counsel Mr. Ambhure for respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by
the learned Member, MACT, Kopargaon in Misc. Application
No.25/2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for
condonation of delay of 207 days in restoring the original MACP
No.11/2008 came to be rejected.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had filed MACP No.11/2008 before the Tribunal seeking
compensation. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of
November 2008, he was appointed as a Legal Officer in a Sugar
Factory, and therefore he could not attend the proceedings for some
period. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed MACP No.11/2008 for
non-prosecution. After coming to know about the dismissal of the
claim petition, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order,

1
8-WP-8416-2017.odt

which was received on 07.03.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner engaged
another advocate and filed an application for setting aside the order
dated 27.06.2012 by which the claim petition was dismissed. Along
with the said application, the petitioner also filed an application for
condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. The said
application was opposed by respondent No.2 – Insurance Company by
filing a reply. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application
for condonation of delay.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned
order.

5. After going through the application and the order passed by the
Tribunal, I find that the learned Tribunal has adopted a hyper-technical
approach. The petitioner had filed the claim petition seeking
compensation arising out of a motor vehicular accident, and therefore
the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the matter from that
perspective. Merely because the petitioner could not remain present
for some time and the claim petition came to be dismissed for non-
prosecution, the Tribunal ought to have taken a liberal view while
considering the application for restoration. Therefore, I am inclined to
allow the present writ petition by setting aside the order passed below
Exhibit–1.

6. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
09.07.2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kopargaon in Misc.
Application No.25/2013 is quashed and set aside. The application
below Exhibit–1 stands allowed.

2
8-WP-8416-2017.odt

7. It is made clear that in case, the Tribunal allows the claim
petition, the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest for the period
from the date of dismissal of the claim petition i.e. 27.06.2012 till
today i.e. 09.03.2026.

[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]

Sameer/March-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…