Bombay High Court
The Manager United India ... vs Shri Baburao S/O Paikan Kamble And ... on 4 April, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 fa469.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2004
The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
through its Manager of
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Nagpur. APPELLANT
ig ...VERSUS...
1. Shri Baburao Paikan Kamble,
aged about 54 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Somanpalli, Tq. Gondpipari,
Distt. Chandrapur.
2. Shri Pravi Bapuji Belekar,
aged about 41 years, Occ. Driver,
R/o. Chintaldhaba, Tahsil Gondpipari,
District - Chandrapur.
3. Shri Rama Maroti Shedmake,
aged about 45 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Jairampur, Tahsil Chamorshi,
District - Gadchiroli RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.N.Dhanagare, counsel for appellant.
None for respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
th
DATE : 4 APRIL, 2016 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] In the case of injury caused as a result of the
accident which occurred on 22.06.1998, the Motor Accident
2 fa469.04.odt
Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicle Act that the claimant has proved the
permanent disability to the extent of 10% and accordingly,
the owner of the vehicle, the driver and the Insurance
Company are held jointly and severally liable to pay
compenation of Rs.75,000/- including 'no fault liability' along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till actual realization. This decision
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, rendered
on 31.03.2004 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 14 of
1999 is the subject matter of challenge by the Insurance
Company in this appeal.
2] None appears for the respondents. I have heard
Shri Dhanagare, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Insurance Company, who says that the Insurance
Company has produced on record Exh. 63, which is the
cover-note in respect of the inusrance of motor vehicle i.e.
Trax bearing registration No. MH-20-A-5634, which was valid
only for the period from 15.03.1996 to 14.03.1997. The
accident occurred on 22.06.1998 and therefore, on two
grounds, viz. (I) that the vehicle was not involved in the
3 fa469.04.odt
accident and (II) the insurance also was not valid and
subsisting on the date of occurrence of the accident, the
tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim.
3] The tribunal has recorded the finding that the
vehicle involved in the accident was MH-33-A-135, a Bajaj
Pick-up Van, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance
Company and the insurance was valid for the period from
21.05.1998 to 20.05.1999. The Insurance Company has
failed to establish that the said vehicle was not involved in
the accident and that it was not insured on the date of
occurrence of the accident on 22.06.1998.
4] The points for determination are as under;
(I) Whether the vehicle i.e. Bajaj Pick-up Van
bearing Registration No.Mh33-A-135 was
involved in the accident, which occurred on
22.06.1998?
(II) Whether the vehicle was validly insured with the
appellant-Insurance Company and such
insurance was existing or in force on the date of
occurrence of the accident?
4 fa469.04.odt
5] In the claim petition, the claimant has stated that
the vehicle involved in the accident was MH-33-A-135, a
Bajaj Pick-up Van. The first information report placed on
record at Exh. 49 shows the involvement of the said vehicle
in an accident. In the registration particulars produced on
record in the prescribed form at Exh.51 shows that the
insurance of this vehicle was valid for the period from
21.05.1998 to 20.05.1999 Though this fact is denied in the
written statement by the Insurance Comapny, there is
nothing on record to suggest that this vehicle was not
involved in the accident. It is not disputed that the owner of
the said vehicle was joined as party respondent in the claim
petition and there is nothing in the evidence of one Dashrath
Gajbhiye, working as Branch Manager, at United India
Insurance Company, Aurangabad, to suggest that such
vehicle was not involved in the accident. The involvement of
the said vehicle in the accident is amply established.
6] The Insurance Company has produced one
another cover-note at Exh. 63 in respect of Tempo Trax
bearing registration No. MH-20-A-5634. It was not the vehicle
involved in the accident and therefore, the fact that the said
5 fa469.04.odt
vehicle was inured for the period from 15.03.1996 to
14.03.1997 is not at all of any consequence. The involvement
of Bajaj Pick-up Van bearing registration No. MH-33-A-135 is
established and there is nothing on record to show that the
said vehicle was not insured on the date of occurrence of the
accident. The insurance in respect of the said vehicle on the
date of accident was subsisting. The tribunal has recorded
the reasons for rejecting the stand taken by the Insurance
Company in para 8 of its judgment and I do not find any
reason to take different view of the matter.
7] In the result, the first appeal is dismissed. No
order as to costs. If the Insurance Company has deposited
any amount, the same shall be permitted to be withdrawn by
the claimant if not already withdraw, alongwith the interest, if
any, accrued thereon. If the claimant has withdrawn the
amount upon furnishing security or giving undertaking, the
same stands discharged.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
