1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 3. FA/25/2010 With CA/8582/2008 In FA/25/2010 (Sanjay Dadarao Varvate and others vs. Sheshrao s/o Gangaram Suryawanshi and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. A.S.Bayas, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. V.R.Jain, Adv., h/f Mr.R.B.Deshmukh, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr.P.C.Mayure, Adv., h/f Mr. S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Adv., for respondent no.4. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:22-3-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard finally. On 22nd Feb., 2010, on hearing the Counsel, since the matter was to be finally heard at admission stage, it was adjourned with a direction, the appellant to pay directly with the executing Court additional amount of Rs.50,000/- within three weeks, with a liberty to the original claimant to withdraw, by making an application to the learned Judge, 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on its own merits. 2. It is informed by both the sides, this order is not complied. Mr.Bayas, Counsel, has assigned reasons for not adhering to the directions as it was beyond the financial reach of the appellant to comply, he being an agriculturist and facing financial crunch. 3. The fact remains, there is non compliance of the order. On merits, Mr. Bayas, Counsel, submits that since the tractor in question was already sold to Waman Suryawanshi in the year 2003, sale document is necessary to be produced and for that again he seeks accommodation. His another contention is, the estimated income of deceased Sandip since is on a higher pedestal, warrants interference. 4. It is not in controversy, 5 persons were travelling on the tractor meant exclusively for 3 agricultural purposes. The insurance policy was alive on the date of the accident dt.12.9.2006. The question of sale of the tractor to Waman Suryawanshi in the year 2003 may be correct, as it is a part of the pleading by the contesting respondent, however, since the Insurance running for the period from 2nd Dec.,2005 to 1st Dec.,2006, was validly in the name of present appellant, he cannot obliterate primarily the responsibility to meet with the claim of the claimants. That apart, any transfer of the vehicle, without communication to the Insurance Company, within the prescribed period of 15 days, is detrimental to the owner of the tractor. In the scenario, sale of the vehicle to Waman Suryawanshi may be true, however, on the date of the petition and even on the date of the accident (12.9.2006), the vehicle was in the name of present appellant as owner. Naturally, he has to face the consequences. 4 5. The unauthorized travel and permission therefor for five persons on a agricultural non transport vehicle, is naturally in breach of the terms of the policy. Learned Judge was justified in exonerating the Insurance Company. Then comes the claim. The learned Judge, on analysis of the documents tendered, though the claimants addressed that Sandip was having monthly income of Rs. 7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- found that it could be analyzed at Rs.4,000/- per month and by deducting one third, the learned Judge has carried the calculations on annual income. Deceased was 25 years old; still, the learned Judge has applied multiplier of 8. These aspects also defuse the contention of the appellant, that the claim is excessive or without proper appreciation of documents. 6. First Appeal does not indicate that there is any error on the part of the learned Judge in granting Rs.2,70,000/- to the claimants, inclusive of amount 5 under No Fault Liability. First Appeal lacks merit. It is dismissed with Civil Application. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/25-10fa