1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11541/2010 DHONDIBAI RAMRAO ABHANGE AND OTHERS VERSUS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, URDHAV MANAR PROJECT AND OTHERS Shri Mr. A.V. Patil Indrale, Advocate for appellants. Smt. M.A. Deshpande, Advocate for respondents no.1and 3 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J Date : 13 th August, 2010. PER COURT:- 1 Heard. 2 The application was heard yesterday. I had requested the appellants’ advocate Smt. Deshpande to remain present today so that the appeal itself can be disposed of. She was seen reluctant to get the appeal disposed of finally. She then also indicated that she would not come to the Court tomorrow. I requested her that since the matter was discussed today in detail and looking to the nature of the case and the delay that has occurred in filing of the appeal etc., I almost insisted on Smt. Deshpande to attend the case tomorrow. I said, she should avoid taking leave tomorrow. But today she has filed leave note. She is thus preventing this Court from disposing of the First Appeal. Be that as it may. In view of the fact that the application was fully heard yesterday, I am free to decide the same. 3 This application is moved by original respondents No.1 2 to 4. They are original claimants / petitioners who had moved the Accident Claims Petition (M.A.C.P. No. 154/1994) way back in 1994, before the District Judge and Ex-Officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Nanded, on account of accidental death of one Ramrao who happened to be the respondents No.1’s husband and father of the respondents no.2 to 4. The respondents No.1 to 4 proved before the lower Court that Ramrao was in employment of the respondent No.4 and that he met with an accident involving a vehicle belonging to the respondent No.4. He also proved that the driver of the vehicle respondent No.1 was in service of respondent No.4. 4 The learned judge of the lower Court on the basis of evidence that has come on recored including the deposition of the respondent No.6 the driver of the vehicle held that the respondent No.6 was negligent in driving the vehicle and had caused accidental death of Ramrao. The learned judge of the lower Court held that the appellant no. 3 who was respondent No.4 in the lower Court, was liable to pay Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of petition. As against this, the present appeal was filed way back in 1996. After filing of this appeal in 1996, the appeal was dismissed for default before issuance of notice to the respondents, mainly because of defaults on the part of the appellant or their advocate. This caused inordinate delay in disposal of this appeal which deserved to have taken up for hearing long back. Due to filing of this appeal, the claimants / respondents No.1 to 4 were kept deprived of the fruits of the award which they obtained way back in 1996. The appeal ultimately was registered after eight years recently on 24 th April, 2010. While passing that order, the learned judge of this 3 Court directed the appellants to deposit entire decreetal amount in this Court on or before 10/06/2010 and the amount accordingly has been deposited. Despite this, it is seen that the appellants are unnecessarily dragging the case and opposing the present application. The approach of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants is obstinate. She apparently avoided to make her submissions today on the merits of the appeal. 5 In view of these glaring facts, I am inclined to allow the application partly. ORDER (a) 50% of the amount deposited by the appellants in this Court shall be handed over to the respondents No.1 to 4. (b) The appeal be heard for admission on next occasion. (c)The respondent No. 4 is given liberty to make similar application in case the appeal is not heard either for admission or finally within next six months. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/