Walmik Devram Patil And Another vs Gulab Daga Patil And Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 4995 Bom

                                                   1                           FA 2655/2015

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                
                       APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                        
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2655 OF 2015




                                                       
     1        Walmik   Devram   Patil,   Aged   56   Years,                APPELLANTS
              Occupation Nil




                                             
     2        Ratnabai   Walmik   Patil,   Aged   53   Years, 
              Occupation Nil      
              Both   Resident   of   Shirdane   Pra   Dangri, 
              Taluka and District Dhule
                                 
              V E R S U S
      


     1        Gulab   Daga   Patil,   Aged   Major,   Occupation        RESPONDENTS
              Agriculture, Resident of Shirdane Pra Dangri, 
   



              Taluka and District Dhule

     2        The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Lane 





              No.5, Bhavsar Complex, Near Municipal Girls 
              High School, Dhule

       
                     Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellants





                          Mr. Rupesh Bora, Advocate, holding for
                    Mr. Kishor D. Pande & Mr. B.A. Dhengle, Advocates
                                   for Respondent No.2


                                                   CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. 

                                                   DATE     : 26th August,  2016





                                                       2                             FA 2655/2015

    ORAL JUDGMENT :




                                                                                     
                                                            
    1.              Heard.


    2.              Admit.




                                                           

3. By consent of both the parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing and heard finally.

4.

The appellants are original claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 456 of 2007, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Dhule, which came to be dismissed on 3rd November, 2012.

5. Most of the facts are admitted. The appellants' son Vijay died

in motor-vehicle accident on 19th December, 2006, at about 06.30 p.m. on

a public road. He was riding a motorcycle belonging to respondent no.1 - Gulab Daga Patil. With him, his friend Yogesh was occupying the pillion seat. The accident occurred only due collision of the motorcycle on the

road divider. Respondent No.1's motorcycle was insured with package policy, in which extra premium was paid for the covering risk of the owner as well as pillion rider.

Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company opposed the claim on the ground that the insurance contract did not contemplate protection to the rider other than owner of the vehicle. This contention of the Insurance Company was upheld by the learned Member. Therefore, this appeal arose.

3 FA 2655/2015

6. The question that arose for my consideration of this appeal is,

whether the insurance policy covered not only the owner of the

motorcycle, but also his representative? The answer is in affirmative.

A person would buy a motorcycle mainly for his personal use

and he would buy an Insurance Policy, which would cover risk to him and his pillion rider. Such insured owner of a motorcycle would have occasions to lend his motorcycle to his friends and family members. The only care at

the time of such lending is that the owner should ensure that the person

who would use and ride his motorcycle has a valid driving licence. At one time, the motorcycle can be ridden only by one person. So, if the owner is

not riding a motorcycle, his authorized representative would automatically get protected by the insurance policy. The Insurance Company cannot say that they would protect only the owner when he would ride the

motorcycle and not his authorised representative. This is logical also

because the contract of insurance covers risk of an unnamed pillion rider. In other words, anyone who would occupy pillion seat, is protected with the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company

that the policy covers only the owner of the motorcycle is not correct and acceptable.

7. In view of this, the appeal would succeed. This claim was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. For deciding such claim, there is no need to prove negligence. The amount of compensation is calculated on the basis of structured formula in Schedule-II. The deceased in this case had income of Rs.3,000/- per month and was about 22 years old. In view of the table, the appellants would be entitled for the

4 FA 2655/2015

compensation of Rs.3000/- ÷ 2 = 1500 x 12 x 17 = 3,06,000/-. As per the

structured formula in the table, the appellants are also entitled to funeral

expenses of Rs.2,000/- and compensation for loss of estate of Rs.4,500/-. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.3,12,500/-.

8. The respondents shall jointly and severally shall pay Rs.3,12,500/- with interest @8% per annum from the date of Appeal till its realization to the appellants.

Thus, the Appeal is allowed in above terms.

( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. )

srm/26/8/[email protected]