1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.728 OF 2009 Narendra Aniruddha Dake Age : 31 years, Occ : Business, R/o Gawalwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Bhimrao Namdeo Pingale Age : 50 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Gawalwadi, Tq. & Dist.Beed. 2. Lahu Ram Karande Age : 25 years, Occ : Driver, R/o Thoratwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. M.A. Tandale, Advocate for appellant. Mr.N.P. Banagar, Advocate for respondent no.1. .... (CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J) DATE :14th January, 2010. ------------------------------ ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. The respondent-owner of the Jeep having saddled with liability for payment of Rs.1 Lacs has assailed the judgment/award of the learned Chairman/Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed dated 18.01.2008. The factual matrix displayed, 2 injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant with two children namely Vishnu and daughter when they were returning on Beed-Nagar road and the motor cycle was driven by Vishnu while the injured-claimant was seating at the extreme backside of the motor cycle. There was collision of the motor cycle and Jeep, in which the three occupant were thrown away. Vishnu and father-claimant herein were unconscious on account of injuries and were removed to the civil hospital, Beed. 2. The controversy revolves to the non-participation of the appellant-herein before the learned Chairman as initially there was application moved on 15.01.2008 by the learned Counsel representing the claimant, the learned Judge rejected the application and proceeded to record the evidence, completed the same. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen there was no cross examination to the claimant or witnesses showing the defendant as absent. 3. It was contended, there was no driving licence with Vishnu. These eventualities are not surfacing on the record though there is pleading. 3 4. During the course of submission, Mr.Tandale has mentioned that, an application seeking adjournment was moved by appellant on 15th January, 2008, but it was not entertained. There is nothing in the Court record to illustrate indeed, such application was ever moved. 5. The fact remain, there is no actual participation from the appellant herein, which he now feels has aggravated the position and he is slapped with the claim. 6. During the course of submission, it revealed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards no fault liability in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is deposited and also Rs.25,000/- is deposited as a statutory amount, in appeal. 7. Considering the above details in the matter, interest of justice warrants to remit the matter back with following directions:- a) The appeal is partly allowed. 4 b) The order dated 18.01.2008 is set aside. The learned Judge/Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall give an opportunity to the appellant herein to cross examine the witnesses and also to lead his evidence, if any. c) The claimants are also entitled to lead evidence, if claimants feel so. d) The amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand) deposited by the appellant herein, shall be paid over to the claimants on claimants furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chairman. e) The Registrar to immediately remit the amount lying in this Court along with accrued interest to the learned Judge for compliance of the above directions. f) The learned Chairman considering the age of the matter shall ensure to dispose of, within three months. The parties shall appear before the learned Judge/Member on 8th February, 2010. 5 g) The appellant should pay costs of Rs.5000/- to the claimants before the learned Judge/Chairman. h) The civil application no.5003/2009 is disposed of. i) The observations are obviously prima facie in nature and the learned Judge shall not be influenced by the same. (K. U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE gas/fa728.09