National Insurance Co, Ltd. ... vs Smt Vidhya Vinayakrao Ghawardol & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1140 Bom

                                                                                 fa291.07
                                             1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                               
                              NAGPUR.




                                                       
                        FIRST   APPEAL     NO.    291    OF     2007




                                                      
    National Insurance Co. Ltd. 
    Through its Divisional Manager
    Divisional Office I, Firdos
    Chambers, Wardha Road, 
    Nagpur.                                                         APPELLANT.




                                           
                              ig          VERSUS

    1] Vidya wd/o Vinayakrao 
    Chawardol, aged 52 yrs. 
                            
    Occu. Household work. 

    2] Ranjeet Vinayakrao
    Chawardol, aged 31 yrs. 
    Occu. Student. 
      


    3] Vishwajeet Vinayakrao
   



    Chawardol, aged 27 yrs.
    Occu. Student. 

    Nos. 1 to 3 original applicants/





    claimants and R/o Kurai,
    Taluka Wani, Distt.Yavatmal. 

    4] M/s Calcutta Industrial
    Supply Corporation, through 
    itsProp Partner having its 





    Office at Shastri Nagar, 
    Chandrapur.  

    5] Sanjayprasad Rajendraprasad
    Rajpoot, aged 30 yrs. Truck 
    Driver, R/o Vilkha  Golbad in 
    P.S. Landerga, Distt. Kodarma
    (State of Bihar) presently R/o
    Niljai P. S. Shirpur, Tal. Wani
    Distt. Yavatmal.                                             NON APPLICANTS.




    ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016                       ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:42:42 :::
                                                                                         fa291.07
                                                 2

    Mrs. S. P. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellant.




                                                                                      
    None for the respondents. 

                                     CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               
                                      Dated    :   APRIL  02, 2016.




                                                             
    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the judgment of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal dated 17.09.2003 whereby the claim

petition filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been partly awarded.

2] One Vinayakrao Chawardol had obtained diploma and was a

medical practitioner . On 11.12.1994 when said Vinayakrao was proceedings

towards Yavatmal on his motorcycle he was dashed by a truck that was

insured with the appellant. The claimants who are the legal heirs of said

Vinayakrao filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the said Act seeking

compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The claim was opposed by the

appellant and the stand was taken that the offending truck was not insured

with it. After considering the evidence on record the Claims Tribunal

awarded compensation of an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimants.

3] Mrs. S. P. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in holding the appellant

liable to satisfy the claim. She raised the same defence which was raised by

the appellant in its written statement that was filed before the Claims

fa291.07

Tribunal vide Ex. 19. It was also submitted that the claimants had not

impleaded the insurer of the motorcycle that was being driven by Vinayakrao.

It was then submitted that considering the fact that the claimant nos. 2 and 3

were major and were independently earning their livelihood they could not

be treated as dependents of Vinayakrao. It is therefore submitted that the

amount of compensation as awarded is on a higher side.

4] There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. However,

with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant I have perused

the records as well as the impugned judgment. The following point arises for

consideration:

Whether any case is made out to interfere with the judgment of the Claims Tribunal?

5] In the written statement filed by the appellant it was initially

pleaded that the offending truck was not insured with the appellant

company. However, subsequently the written statement came to be amended

and it was pleaded that the offending truck was registered as per cover note

no. 462042 for the period from 30.03.1994 till 29.03.1995. Similarly

registration particulars issued by the Regional Transport Office, Chandrapur

at Ex. 48 also indicated the fact that the offending vehicle was registered with

the appellant. In view of this evidence, the finding recorded by the Claims

Tribunal against issue no. 2 cannot be said to be contrary to the record.

6] While calculating the amount of compensation the Claims

Tribunal took into consideration the age of Vinayakrao and the fact that he

was having private practice as a Doctor. The monthly income that has been

fa291.07

taken into consideration is Rs. 3000/- per month and contribution has been

taken to be Rs. 2000/- per month. Accordingly the yearly loss of dependency

had been taken to be Rs. 24,000/-. After considering the age of said

Vinayakrao, the multiplier of eight has been applied and therefore loss of

dependency has been taken to be Rs. 1,92,000/-. A sum of Rs. 4000/- has

been granted towards loss of consortium.

The Claims Tribunal has not accepted the case of the claimants

with regard to loss of income from the agricultural activities. Though the

revenue records at Ex. 50 to 52 were placed on record same have not been

taken into consideration to grant any compensation. Hence, it cannot be said

that the total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as awarded by the Claims

Tribunal is on a higher side.

7] The claim of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 cannot be defeated on the

ground that the insurer of the motorcycle that was being driven by

Vinayakrao had not been impleaded. The occurrence of the accident and the

involvement of the offending vehicle which was insured with the appellant

having been proved, the claim for compensation is liable to be satisfied by the

appellant. Moreover, the owner and the driver of the offending truck have

also been made jointly and severally liable. The point as framed is answered

by holding that there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned

judgment.

8] Accordingly, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal in Motor

Accident Claims No. 175 of 1995 stands confirmed. The First Appeal stands

fa291.07

dismissed with no order as to costs. The balance amount of compensation

shall be disbursed to the respondent nos. 1 to 3. There would be no order as

to costs.

JUDGE svk