The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune. The Court observed that one cannot expect that for getting the compensation of the deceased husband, the widow has to remain a widow for a lifetime or till getting compensation.
Brief Facts:
On 15th May 2010, Sakharam Gaikwad was riding the motorcycle and the deceased Ganesh was a pillion rider on the said motorcycle. At the time of the incident, Sakharam was crossing the Mumbai-Pune road for going toward Kamshet. At the relevant time, Respondent No.1 drove his rickshaw in a rash, excessive and negligent manner and thereby dashed to the motorcycle. Because of the dash, Sakharam and the deceased fell down on road and sustained multiple injuries. The deceased Ganesh sustained a head injury. Ganesh died while taking treatment. The offence was registered against the Respondent No.1 rickshaw driver.
The Claimants filed Claim Petition for getting compensation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed judgment and order, it is under challenge.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that Respondent No.1 drove the offending rickshaw outside the jurisdiction and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the permit. Therefore, the Appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the Claimants. The permit to ply the offending rikshaw was for the Thane district only. The incident had happened outside the Thane district.
Further, the Counsel submitted that the Claimant No.1-wife of deceased Ganesh remarried after the death of Ganesh. Hence, she is not entitled to compensation, and the income of the deceased is considered on the higher side.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that the offending rickshaw had a permit to drive the rickshaw. No witness was examined by the Appellant to prove that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the permit before the Tribunal.
Further, the Counsel submitted that when Ganesh died, at that time, Claimant No.1 was a widow and thereafter she filed Claim Petition for getting compensation. At the time of the death of her husband, she was 19 years old only. Hence her remarriage cannot be a ground to deny compensation to her.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that a breach of terms and conditions of the policy is quite different than a breach of terms and conditions of a permit issued by the RTO Authority. The permit was issued for the purpose of plying the rickshaw and giving the service within the District Thane. However, it does not preclude Opponent No.1 to carry the rickshaw out of the jurisdiction of District Thane.
Further, the Court observed that in respect of the issue of remarriage of Claimant No.1, it appears from the record that at the time of the death of her husband, she was 19 years old. Thereafter, she filed a Claim Petition for getting compensation; during the pendency of the Claim petition she re-married. One cannot expect that for getting the compensation for the deceased husband, the widow has to remain a widow for a lifetime or till getting compensation. Considering her age, and at the time of the accident, she was the wife of the deceased, this is sufficient ground that she is entitled to compensation. Moreover, after the death of the husband remarriage cannot be a taboo to getting compensation.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that each Claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- as a consortium amount.
Case Title: The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Bhagyashri Ganesh Gaikwad & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. G. Dige
Case no.: FIRST APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Vikrant Purashurami
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Uday B. Nighot
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
