(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2010 Sopan s/o. Revaji Sant, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Villoli, Nasik, Taluka & District : Nasik. .. Appellant. versus 1. Arjun Raghunath Salve, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service (Deleted vide Exh. 31). 2. Anita Sanjay Sonawane, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Household. 3. Kavita Uttam Patore, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Household. 4. Sunita Pradip Gawali, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Household. 5. Ashok Arjun Salve, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Education. (2) 6. Sarala Arjun Salve, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Education. All R/o. Chitali, Taluka : Rahata, .. Respondents District : Ahmednagar. (Nos.1 to 6 - Original applicants 7. Branch Manager, & The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., No.7 - Original Parag Plaza Building, opponent no.2 ) Taluka & District : Ahmednagar. (Deleted) ....................... Mr. S.W. Munde, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.A. Tambe, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 6. ........................ W I T H FIRST APPEAL NO. 159 of 2010 Sopan s/o. Revaji Sant, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Villoli, Nasik, Taluka & District : Nasik. .. Appellant. versus (3) Arjun Raghunath Salve, Deceased Heirs as per Exh.28. 1. Anita Sanjay Sonawane, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Household. 2. Kavita Uttam Patore, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Household. 3. Sunita Pradip Gawali, Age : 31 years, Occupation : Household. 4. Ashok Arjun Salve, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Education. 5. Sarala Arjun Salve, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Education All R/o. Chitali, Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents (Nos.1 to 5 - 6. Branch Manager, Original applicants The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., & Parag Plaza Building, No.6 - Original Taluka & District : Ahmednagar. opponent no.2 ) (Deleted). ............................ (4) Mr. S.W. Munde, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.A. Tambe, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 5. ............................. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7TH MAY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. Heard finally. 3. Record and proceedings perused by the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. In First Appeal No. 158/2010, challenge is to the award of Rs. 1,80,000/-, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 319/2001, due to death of Narmadabai in the accident having taken place on 7-1-2001. The First Appeal No. 159/2010 challenges the award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 469/2001, awarding Rs. 20,000/- with interest, for injury sustained by Arjun Salve, husband of Narmadabai. (5) 5. The record illustrate, on 7th January 2001, at around 8.15 p.m., Arjun along with his wife Narmadabai, while returning from Punewadi (Taluka : Parner, District : Ahmednagar) to their village Chitali (Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar) plying on motorcycle, one truck bearing No. MH-19/1999, came from back side and dashed the motorcycle. Resultantly, Narmadabai succumbed, while Arjun suffered injuries on his knee. He was shifted to hospital, giving rise to registration of offence, being Crime No. 6/2001 against Driver and owner of the vehicle. 6. Mr. S.W. Munde, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant (original respondent), points by reading the Rozanama of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, that for a long duration, the claimants did not attend the proceedings and surreptitiously at one day, only on appearance of claimants, evidence is recorded and the matter was closed. I find, all throughout the claimants were absent, so also, the respondent, owner of the vehicle, was absent. 7. The proceedings under Section 140 or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature. Indeed, the learned Chairman, from the record, has accommodated the claimants and the respondent for more than seven years. However, the fact remains, the owner of the vehicle could not (6) prosecute the matter before the learned Judge, having remained absent. 8. Mr. S.W. Munde, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, informs, the appellant, owner of the vehicle, has a good case, as the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and it is a false case roped against the appellant / owner of the vehicle. 9. The written statement also spells out in tune, as is argued today. There were three affidavits tendered on behalf of the owner to impress non-involvement of the vehicle, however, affidavits could not be read in evidence for want of presence of the witnesses. 10. Considering overall survey of the matter, the request urged by Mr. Munde, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, to remand / remit the matter to the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, warrants favourable consideration. The merits of the case of the claimants, to which the learned Judge has referred in the judgment, is not dealt with nor it is dissected as to its merits or demerits. 11. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. (7) (i) The orders dated 17-8-2007, passed by the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 319/2001 and Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 469/2001, are quashed and set aside, and the matter remitted to the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, with following directions. (ii) The learned Chairman or the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall allow the original respondent to lead evidence in support of his contention. If the claimants desire, they are at liberty to lead their evidence. (iii) The appellant, Sopan, shall deposit consolidated amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- [Rupees Two Lakhs], deducting the amount deposited in this court, before the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, within two months from today, failure the order under challenge to remain unaltered. (iv) The Chairman / Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, considering the date of accident and the time lag involved, shall ensure to dispose of the matter up to September 2010. (8) (v) Parties shall appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 9th June 2010. (vi) The appellant shall pay and deposit composite costs of Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand] in both the appeals. Costs to be deposited before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on or before 9th June 2010. The claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the costs. (vii) The amount of Rs. 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand], deposited on 14-7-2008 in First Appeal No. 158/2010, and Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand], deposited on 14-7-2008, in First Appeal No. 159/2010, in this court, be sent at the earliest, to the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in the respective petitions. (viii) The claimants shall be entitled to withdraw fifty percent of the amount in each of the matter from the deposits made by the appellant herein, on an application made to the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on furnishing security. (ix) The learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims (9) Tribunal, Ahmednagar, may transfer the matter, if the jurisdiction is changed to any other Tribunal. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/FA158etc