1 ca2506.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2506 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2733 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. S.S. Shinde, Advocate for applicants. Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 20TH DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Present Civil Application is preferred by the original claimants for withdrawal of sum of Rs.3,95,652/-. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submit deceased Hanmant was the son of applicant Nos.1 and 2, husband of the applicant No.3, and father of applicant No.4 died in the accident which 2 ca2506.10 occurred on 31-01-2007. They filed claim petition under section 166 of the M.V. Act for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. In the said claim petition, Tribunal by judgment and award dated 24-06-2009 directed the respondents to pay sum of Rs.4,01,000/- inclusive of no fault liability and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation to the applicants. 3. Insurance Company preferred Civil Application. As per order passed by this Court, they deposited sum of Rs. 3,95,652/-. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the applicants are the poor persons pulling their life in miserable condition. The applicants have lost the earning member of their family. They are dire need of money to fulfill their daily needs. The applicant No.4 is a minor of 3 years and the amount is required for her nourishment. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 Insurance Company vehemently opposed the present Civil Application. He submits that the 3 ca2506.10 deceased was travelling by sitting on the head of the tractor and therefore, there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy and they are not liable to pay any compensation. He further placed reliance in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanjappan and others, reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1630. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for both the sides, I am of the opinion that objections raised by Insurance Company can not be consider at this stage. They already deposited amount in this Court. When the applicants are ready and willing to furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court, they can be allowed to withdraw sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs only) for the maintenance of minor child - applicant NO. 4 and applicant Nos. 2 and 3. 6. Civil Application is allowed. 7. Applicant No.3 Sunita wd/o Hanumant Ahilwad is allowed to withdraw sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs only) on 4 ca2506.10 furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. This amount is allowed to withdraw by applicant No.3 on behalf of her and for applicant No.1 Balaji s/o Dattu Ahilwad, applicant No.2 Rukminbai w/o Balaji Ahilwad and minor applicant No.4 Kum. Mayuri d/o Hanumant Ahilwad. 8. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. sd/- [ K. K. TATED, J.] sut/DEC10/ca2506.10