1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1372 OF 2009 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant. Versus Jagan s/o. Vittal Paul and others. ....Respondents. Shri. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. N.R.Pawde h/f. Shri. D.J. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 18th September, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri. M.B. Kolpe, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri. N.R. Pawde, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. This appeal challenges the order passed below Exh. 5 by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad on 17.4.2009 holding that the appellant Insurance Company along with the owner of the offending vehicle, to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants towards no fault liability. Shri. Chapalgaonkar, the learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that the 2 F.I.R. which has been placed on record of this Court clearly shows that the claimant has stated that the deceased was sitting beside the driver of the tractor. He has further placed reliance on the policy, copy of which is also placed on record. The learned counsel urged that the policy shows the sitting capacity for only one person and the perusal of the F.I.R. makes it clear that the deceased was sitting beside the driver, and hence, the claim was not covered by the insurance policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 3. I have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal. In para 2 of the order, the Tribunal has clearly observed that the appellant Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle have not filed written statement. There is no defence raised by the Insurance Company that the risk of accident in question, was not covered by the insurance policy. The learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, pointed out that on 25th of March 2008, the claim petition was filed and the order was passed on 17.4.2009. However, the Insurance Company did not file its written statement. Shri. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, the learned counsel for the appellant states that the Insurance Company had moved an application for permission to file the written statement. However, the said application was rejected by the Tribunal on the same day and consequently, the appellant and owner of offending vehicle were not heard on the date of passing of the order. 3 4. It is not in dispute that the Insurance Company has not filed written statement on record. What was filed was the application for grant of time to file the written statement. The Tribunal was, therefore, left with no option, but to pass an order under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The matter was pending for orders on application under section 140 of the said Act for the period of almost 11 months and hence, the complaint that appellant was not heard, cannot be entertained. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned in the present appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. 5. The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Court on 15.6.2009, the same shall be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Osmanabad immediately and the Tribunal, thereupon, shall pass an appropriate order. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/fa1372.09