1 Spb/- IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 566 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1351 OF 2010 In S.A.No. 566/2010 Shri Bhimappa Laxman Mudalagi .. Appellant. V/s. Smt. Savita Mahadev Khadake & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. Jayant J. Bardeskar for the Appellant. --- CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. DATED: 23rd APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. 2. The appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission inasmuch as questions raised in the appeal lie in the narrow compass. The appellant is owner of Tractor No.KA-31-T-349 alongwith Trolleys No. KA-23-TA-1067 as well as KA-23-TA-1068. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 are legal representatives of deceased Mahadeo Khadake. On 11.12.2006 at about 10.30 p.m., deceased Mahadev was riding on a motor cycle and was proceeding by Kolhapur -Ratnagiri Road. 2 At the relevant time, the Tractor annexed with two trolleys was parked on road within the boundary limits of village Kerli. It was alleged that the Trolleys were not properly parked and there was no hind read light. It was further alleged that though deceased Mahadev was driving the motor vehicle with due care and slow speed, yet because of the negligent parking of the Tractor and the Trolleys by its driver, he could not notice the parking vehicles. With the result, the motor vehicle severely dashed on the trolleys from behind. Therefore said Mahadev was seriously injured. As a result of fatal head injury, he died. He was employed as Chemical Operator in M/s. Jyoti Chemicals & Engineering, Javahar Nagar, Kolhapur. He was aged about 42 years. His monthly income was Rs.3200/-. The claimants, therefore, filed application under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant and the insurance company. 3. Though served, the appellant did not appear before the Motor Accident Tribunal, Kolhapur and was, 3 therefore, set ex-parte. The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the claimants because the trolleys were not insured and moreover the trolleys were being used for unauthorized transportation of goods without any permit for such use. The Tribunal held that the Appellant is liable and directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation of amount of Rs. 3,45,500/- to the claimants which may be recovered from the appellant in due course of the same execution proceedings. 4. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is unsustainable because when the trolleys are annexed with the tractor, it can be regarded as one unit in view of the observations in the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Koduru Bhagyamma & Ors. (2009 ACJ 514). He would further submit that the age of the deceased was not properly proved and, therefore, quantum arrived at by the Tribunal is incorrect. He contended that the trolleys were not being unauthorizedly used for 4 transportation of the goods of any one else but the goods were owned by the appellant. 5. I find it difficult to countenance the submissions of the learned counsel. First, the appellant did not appear before the Tribunal. There are no pleadings of the appellant to show that he owned the goods. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the trolleys were legally authorized to transport the goods. It has come on record that only the tractor vehicle was insured with the insurance company. It may be that when the trolleys are annexed to the tractor, the vehicle can be regarded as one unit. The transport permit, however, cannot be dispensed with. The tractor with the trolleys was registered in the State of Karnataka. The use of the vehicle was within the limitation of the State of Maharashtra and the appellant failed to explain under what circumstances, the trolleys were being used for transportation of the goods. Hence, it is difficult to say that the goods were being transported in legally permissible 5 manner. 6. The Tribunal has considered age of the deceased as approximately, 45 years in view of the recitals and post-mortem report. The tribunal has considered probable income of the deceased on assumption that ordinarily a labour could earn Rs. 100/- per day. The tribunal did not blindly accept the version of the claimants and the monthly income of the deceased Mahadev. The application was decided on the basis of the structured formula specified under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Considering the reasons ascribed by the tribunal and the circumstances brought on the record, there appears no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. No costs. In view of this, nothing survives in the civil application and the same is disposed of as such. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)