Bombay High Court
Maroti Warsaji Watmode & Others vs Laxman Natthuji Mandhare & Others on 5 April, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
fa530.04.J.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.530 OF 2004
1] Maroti s/o Warsaji Watmode,
Aged about 67 years,
Matador Owner, R/o Chana Takali,
Tahsil Deoli, District Wardha.
2] Subhash Shankarrao Lahure,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation - Driver,
Resident of Takali (Khode),
Tahsil Deoli, District Wardha.
ig ....... APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1] Laxman s/o Natthuji Mandhare,
Aged 47 years,
Occupation - Labour.
2] Chandrakala w/o Laxman Mandhare,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation - Household.
3] Dnyaneshwar s/o Laxman Mandhare,
Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Education.
No.1 to 3 are resident of Takali Chana,
Tahsil Deoli, District Wardha.
4] Savita w/o Dnyaneshwar Karluke,
Aged about 24 years,
Occupation - Household,
R/o Kuhi, District Nagpur.
5] New India Insurance Company Limited
through its Branch Manager,
Branch at Wardha, Tahsil and
District Wardha. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for Appellants.
Shri S.N. Dhanagare, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:04:09 :::
fa530.04.J.odt 2/5
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th APRIL, 2016.
DATE: 5
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] In Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1 of 2002 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.2,16,600/- inclusive of no fault liability along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle are held
liable jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation.
The Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability on the
ground that the deceased was the representative of the owner of the
goods, and therefore, he was not covered by the policy. This award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 29.06.2004 is the
subject-matter of challenge in this appeal by the owner and driver of the
offending vehicle.
2] The undisputed factual position is that the deceased Suresh
s/o Laxmanrao Mandhare was sitting in the open Matador (goods
carrier) which was carrying the goods on 17.04.2001. The deceased
came in contact with the hanging electric wire while the Matador
No.MH-32 B-2926 was in the motion and died because of electrocution.
The case of the claimant was that the deceased was working as a
fa530.04.J.odt 3/5
labourer, who was hired by one Wankhede family for loading and
unloading the goods for the marriage purpose in the offending vehicle.
The owner and the driver of the vehicle has denied to have engaged the
deceased to accompany the goods, which were to be carried for the
marriage purpose from Takli (Chanaji) to Waigaon. The Tribunal has
held that though the insurance policy placed on record marked as Exhibit
31 in respect of the offending vehicle covered the labourer, the deceased
was the representative of the owner of the goods, and was therefore, not
covered by the insurance policy.
3] The point for determination is as under:
[i] Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in
exonerated/discharging the Insurance Company from its
liability to make the payment of compensation jointly and
severally along with the owner and driver of the vehicle?
4] Undisputedly, the policy at Exhibit 31 covers the risk of
labourer. The registration of the vehicle i.e. Matador bearing registration
No.MH-32 B-2926 is itself as a goods carriage vehicle and admits the risk
of the labourers occupying the vehicle. The capacity of the deceased as a
labourer is not disputed for loading and unloading purposes, but what
has been held by the Tribunal to discharge the Insurance Company is
fa530.04.J.odt 4/5
that the deceased was the representative of the owner of the vehicle, and
was therefore, not covered by the policy. Such a distinction was not
warranted, once the capacity of the deceased as a labourer on the goods
vehicle was not disputed. The Tribunal has therefore, committed an error
in exonerated/discharging the Insurance Company of its liability to make
the payment of compensation more particularly, when the policy at
Exhibit 31 was valid and subsisting on the date of the occurrence of the
accident. The order to that extent passed by the Tribunal cannot
therefore, be sustained.
5] In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 29.06.2004 in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.01 of 2002 is hereby modified, and it is held that the
appellants along with the respondent No.5 - the Oriental Insurance
Company Limited are held jointly and severally liable to make the
payment of compensation as has been awarded by the Tribunal.
The Award is modified only to that extent leaving the other portion of
the award passed by the Tribunal intact. No order as to costs.
6] The appellant has deposited 50% of the amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,08,300/- which is lying in a fixed
deposit with this Court and on that condition this Court had passed an
order of stay to the execution of the award. There does not seem to be
fa530.04.J.odt 5/5
any order passed by this Court permitting the claimant to withdraw the
amount. In view of this, the appellant shall be permitted to withdraw the
amount along with the interest, if any, accrued, and the claimant shall be
at liberty to recover the entire amount of compensation in terms of the
Award passed by the Tribunal, from the Insurance Company. No costs.
ig JUDGE
NSN
