1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3059 OF 2005 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.4291 OF 2005 (Ishawar s/o Nilkant Chavan (Kadam) and another vs. The New India Assurance co.Ltd. and the State) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.S.Manale, Adv., for the applicant/appellant. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:23-4-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard. The claimants felt themselves to be indigent and requested to allow them to file the appeal as indigent persons. Considering the financial status of the claimants, as the claim itself is dismissed, the application (NO.3059 OF 2005) is allowed. Office to register the appeal and, taken up for hearing immediately. 2. After hearing Mr.S.S.Manale, Counsel for the claimants, I find 2 that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident because of his rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw. The deceased, while driving the vehicle - auto rickshaw, did not take precaution and plunged the vehicle in the flood water on the bridge. 3. There is no controversy about the spot panchnama (Exh.33), however, it reveals that the bed of the river is with the width of 100 fts and breadth was 22 fts. At a distance of 15 fts.mini door auto rickshaw was found stationed in the river bed and even at that time there was water level of three fts. This certainly indicates, the deceased took risk of his life and others by plunging the auto rickshaw on the bridge inspite of there being high tide of water. The cause to the accident being self invited, planned, the claimants are not entitled to resort to any remedies against the Insurance Company as indemnification of the company 3 flows to indemnify the owner. However, here, the driver himself being negligent, the liability of owner to face the consequences may seldom come and, consequently, the Insurance Company will also be not liable. There is no merit in the First Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/ca3059-05