1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CA NOS.2304/1996;2282/1994 & 2284/96 IN FA ST.NO. 15561/1994 Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court s orders ’ Court’s or Judge’s Order or directions and Registrar s orders ’ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 15th JUNE, 2009 --- P.C.:- The applicant has requested to allow him to prosecute the appeal as indigent person. The matter arise out of the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein the claim against the insurance company has been dismissed and the insurance company is exonerated. CA, seeking to prosecute as an indigent person as against the original respondent nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed by order 6th February, 2009. The net result in the matter is, nothing survives 2 for the applicant to prosecute as an indigent person. 2) The application apart from the above flaws lacks merit, as the applicant was required to deposit necessary court fees. There is no certification that he has no means to make good the court fees or that he has become indigent subsequently. These aspects, will have to be considered. The application lacks merit, it is dismissed. 3) By CA no.2282/1994, the applicant has furnished details of his belongings, which according to him, amounts to 800/-. This is contrary to what he has averred earlier. This application lacks merit, it is dismissed. 4) By CA no.2284/1996, the applicant has requested to condone delay of 71 days. The 3 delay is not properly explained. Appeal is unfortunately dismissed as against Respondent No.1 and 2. The main matter is dismissed as against the insurance company. The delay itself is not properly explained, the application rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also rejected. No costs. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/bdv/ca2304.96