Bombay High Court
The Divisional Manager Nagpur vs Smt Prabha Ashlesh Dafade & 5 ... on 28 September, 2012
Bench: M.N. Gilani
1 fa105.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.105/2004
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co.,
D.O. No.I, Mount Road, Sadar,
Nagpur. ..... Appellant.
..Versus..
1. Smt. Prabha Wd/o Ashlesh Dafade,
aged about 39 Yrs., Occu. Private Service.
2. Rekhunsh s/o Ashlesh Dafade,
aged about 25 Yrs., Occu. Education.
3. Ku. Reshal d/o Ashlesh Dafade,
aged about 23 Yrs., Occu. Education.
4. Ku. Roopam d/o Ashlesh Dafade,
aged about 14 Yrs., Occu. Education.
No.4 minor through guardian
respondent no.1 mother.
All r/o Ravinagar, Nagpur.
5. Kishor M. Somankar,
aged major, owner of jeep,
R/o Main Road, Armori, Tq. Armori,
Distt. Gadchiroli.
6. Munindra s/o Purushottam Meshram,
aged major, owner of Auto-rickshaw,
r/o Armori, Tq. Armori,
Distt. Gadchiroli. .....Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.N. Dhanagare, Adv. for appellant.
None for the respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:47:12 :::
2 fa105.04
CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J.
DATED : 28/9/2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated
1/11/2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim
Petition No.656/1998.
2. Facts are thus :
In a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 21/3/1998, one
Ashlesh Dafde died. He left behind him a widow and three children. At
the relevant time, he was serving in forest department, drawing salary of
Rs.6,700/- per month and was 39 years old. The learned Tribunal after
deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased and after applying multiplier of 16 awarded compensation of
Rs.9,15,256/- under all the heads.
3. Mr. Dhanagare, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, contended that the responsibility of satisfying the award ought
not to have been saddled on the appellant for the reason that the deceased
was a gratuitous passenger in the jeep which met with an accident. He,
therefore, contends that the directions in the award issued against the
appellant to satisfy the award be set aside.
4. None appeared for the respondents.
3 fa105.04
5. On the point of negligence, the learned Tribunal held that the
driver of the jeep in which the deceased was travelling and the
auto-rickshaw which was wrongly parked and against which the jeep
dashed were negligent. However, the question of apportionment of the
liability did not crop up for the reason that both the vehicles were insured
with the appellant. This finding is recorded in para 10 of the judgment.
6. As regards claim of the appellant that the deceased was a
gratuitous passenger in the jeep, no evidence was led by the appellant.
Prabha (P.W.1) widow of the deceased entered the witness box and has
been cross examined on behalf of the appellant. She clarified that the
owner of the jeep was acquainted with the deceased and therefore, the
deceased was travelling by the said vehicle. Other witness examined by the
claimants is Shyamrao Lade (P.W.2), Chief Accountant in the forest
department, presumably, to prove the salary of the deceased. Whatever
evidence is brought on record, does not support the case of the appellant
that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in an ill-fated jeep. Even
otherwise also, there being involvement of two vehicles, award against the
owners, drivers and insurers has to be joint and several they being joint
tort feasors qua the claimants.
7. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this
appeal.
4 fa105.04
8. Appeal is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
