1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5. FA/754/2009 (CHANDRAKANT NARAYAN DHAWALE V/S M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. H.A.Patankar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. Anand Bhise, Adv., h/f Mr. M.M.Ambhore, Adv., for respondent (sole). ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 7/1/2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant/original claimant. Dismissal of the claim petition by order dt.11.7.2006 by second Additional District Judge and Ex Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded, is assailed by the claimant. 2. The claimant had procured the vehicle under Government Scheme being Mini Auto Rickshaw No.MH-26/B-7471. He was himself 2 plying his vehicle and used to meet his daily livelihood. On 11.8.2002, petitioner/claimant was driving his auto rickshaw, referred above and it turtled, resultantly, the petitioner suffered severe injuries. He was shifted to Civil Hospital at Basmat and thereafter, to other hospital at Nanded. The petitioner claimed that due to accident he had suffered severe disability for which disability certificate was produced. 3. The learned Judge found, that the petitioner being himself the driver of the vehicle, could not claim the award/decree as against himself. The learned Judge has also found, the petitioner himself was negligent in driving the auto rickshaw due to which accident has taken place. The petitioner was carrying passengers by the said vehicle. There was no valid permit for carrying the passengers by the vehicle involved in the accident. The petitioner, naturally, was 3 using the vehicle in contravention of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy or the permit. In the situation, if any accident has taken place, the liability of the Insurance Company will seldom arise as there was obvious breach of terms of Insurance Policy. 4. The petitioner since desired his petition to be entertained in terms of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act was also expected to tender relevant documents in terms of Rule 281-A of Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules, however, the learned Judge also found that the petitioner failed to produce such requisite documents which was part of an obligation cast on him. Since there was nothing before the learned Judge to derive that the income of the petitioner was within the stipulated limit of Rs. 40,000/- the learned Judge was again justified in negativing the contentions agitated by the petitioner and, particularly when the petitioner asserts that his 4 monthly income is Rs.15,000/- while the annual income will be beyond the scope of Rs. 40,000/-,the outer limit carved out under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. The observations of learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded, made while rejecting the claim petition flow in tune with statutory provisions and are also in the context of the evidence adduced. No interference. First Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/754-09fa