1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.112 of 2007 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.113 OF 2007 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. These two Appeals from Orders are directed against dismissal of Miscellaneous Application Nos.12 and 13 of 2005 by the learned District Judge and Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur by his two orders both dated 17.6.2006. 2. Present Respondent No.1 in both the Appeals from Orders had filed Petitions i.e. Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.537 and 539 of 2000 for compensation. It is alleged that on 27.11.1999 on Latur-Ambejogai road when they were loading agricultural 2 produce in a transport vehicle, a tractor came in rash and negligent manner from Amejogai side and dashed them resulting in injuries to them. 3. Present Appellant Pandurang is the owner of the tractor. According to him, the tractor was insured with Respondent No.2-insurance company. He was duly served with notice of claim petitions filed, but since there was insurance of the tractor-trolley, though he engaged Advocate, he did not file written statement nor did he attend the court. Ultimately the court found that the cover note produced by the claimants did not cover the date of accident and the injuries were duly proved. Accordingly, claims were allowed against present appellant-owner of the tractor and compensations of Rs. 3,000/= and Rs.6,000/= were awarded. 3 4. After award of compensation, present appellant filed two Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 12 and 13 of 2005 for setting aside ex-parte awards, stating abovesaid circumstances and it also alleged that he has a a cover note, covering the date of accident which was not produced by the claimant and, therefore, prayed for setting aside exparte decree. Learned Member, M.A.C.T was not satisfied with the reasons given and he dismissed the said miscellaneous applications. 5. When admittedly notices are served and the present appellant had appeared before the Tribunal, he ought to have verified whether the cover note produced on record, covered the date of accident. Even after notice and after engaging Advocate, he did not file his say nor did he contest the claim petitions which is a voluntary act on the part 4 of present appellant. It cannot be said to be a satisfactory reason when compensation awarded is only Rs. 3,000/= and Rs.6,000/= and it would be wrong to drag the claimants for another round of litigation for such small amount. 6. I am not satisfied with the reasons given for setting aside ex- parte awards. Hence, both the appeals from Orders are dismissed. However, if after satisfaction of award, appellant has any remedy against the insurance company, he is at liberty to have recourse to the same. Appellant to pay costs of these two Appeals to Respondent No.1 and bear his own. Date:24/09/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/ao112.07