1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.2735 OF 2009 Raosaheb s/o Bajirao Bhojne - APPELLANT VERSUS 1) The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SR Yadav,Advocate for Appellant; Mr.KV Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr.BA Darak, Advocate for Respondent No.3; Mr.AM Hajare, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 4 to 9. ----- WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2710 OF 2009. Rajendraprasad s/o Gangabishan Porwal - APPELLANT VERSUS 1) Mangal w/o Balasaheb Waghmare and others - RESPONDENTS _____ Mr.BA Darak, Advocate for the appellant; Mr.AM Hajare, Adv. for Resp.Nos. 1, 5 & 6; Mr.SR Yadav, Adv. for Respondent No.8; Mr.AS Usmanpurkar, Adv. h/for Mr. KV Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.9 _____ 2 CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 4th January, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard both the counsel appearing for the original respondents. 2) The Award in the Claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is subject of challenge. The appellant - Raosaheb (in FA No.2735/2009) canvassed that the vehicle was already transferred and thereafter the accident has taken place and, therefore, no liability could have been fastened against the appellant - Raosaheb. While the Counsel appearing for the appellant - Rajendraprasad (in FA No. 2710/2009), contended that the observation of the learned Member, about fixing the liability and exonerating the insurance company, needs interference, as there was a valid driving license with the jeep driver, however, it could not be placed on record due to personal difficulties of the Counsel representing the appellant - Rajendraprasad before the learned Member. During the course of submissions it is pointed, the Counsel for Rajendraprasad had serious ailment and was compelled under the 3 circumstances in not attending the matter. The Counsel had not attributed any deliberate negligence to the counsel appearing before the learned Member. 3) It is a matter of record, out of the compensation amount, Rs.1,37,000/- is deposited by Rajendraprasad in this Court. The statutory amount is also deposited by the appellant – Raosaheb. 4) Considering the rival contentions, since the appellants were compelled under the unforeseen circumstances not to prosecute the matter diligently, though they were equipped with the valid record/document, I find it just to remit the matter to the learned Member to decide the same within fixed time frame. Needless to mention, the respective counsel or the parties shall not seek any adjournment before the learned Member on any count. The learned Member shall independently decide the production application moved by any of the parties to the litigation. The amount, which the claimants have received, shall remain with them, to be taken into consideration by the learned Member at the time of final adjudication of the claim Petition. ORDER i) The appeals are partly allowed; 4 ii) The matter is remitted to the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna to decide the same afresh, giving opportunities to the respective parties to adduce evidence and to dispose of the application up to 22nd June, 2010. iii) The amount deposited by the appellant – Rajendraprasad (in FA No. 2710/2009)in this Court be remitted to the learned Member of MACT, Jalna, to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank, and thereafter the learned Member will pass appropriate orders. iv) The statutory amount deposited by appellant – Raosaheb (in FA No.2710/2009) be also remitted to the learned Member of MACT, Jalna, to be invested in a Nationalized bank till decision of the claim petition. v) The parties shall appear before the learned Member of MACT, Jalna, on 18th January, 2010. No costs. vi) Respective Civil Applications disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa2735.09