Bombay High Court
The National Insurance Co Ltd vs Mangal Nandkumar Jadhav on 26 August, 2016
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
1 FA 1072/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1072 OF 2009
1 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., having its APPELLANT
Regd & Head Office at 3 Middleton Street
Kolkatta and Branch Osmanabad 413 501 and
Divional Office at Station Road, Hazari
Chambers, Aurangabad, Through its
Divisional Manager and Duly Constituted
Attorney Shri Shrikrishna Ramji Bodade, Aged
52 Years
2 Sayyad Abdul Kdar Jilani s/o Abdul Gafoor,
Major, Occ. Truck Owner, Resident of at
Patha Peta D.No. 22/56, NUZVID
V E R S U S
1 Mangal W/o Nandkumar Jadhav, Aged 30 RESPONDENTS
Years, Occupation Household
2 Master Sagar S/o Nandkumar Jadhav, Aged
13 Years, Occupation Student
3 Master Akshaya S/o Nandkumar Jadhav,
Aged 7 Years, Occupation Student
4 Msis Rakhi d/o Nandkumar Jadhav, Aged 5
Years, Occupation Student
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are Minors, through
guardian Mother Respondent No.1, Resident
of Omerga, Taluka Omerga, District
Osmanabad
Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. A.S. More, Advocate for the Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2016 00:21:25 :::
2 FA 1072/2009
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.
DATE : 26th August, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This Appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenges the
Judgment and Award dated 14th February, 2005, delivered by the learned
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad, in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No. 298 of 1999.
2. The facts leading to the litigation are as under :-
Victim Narayan @ Nandkumar S/o Balbhim Jadhav was 35
years old, who died on 16th May, 1999 at about 05.50 a.m. He was walking
by the side of the road and the offending vehicle ran over him. The
respondents are his family members viz. his wife and minor children.
3. The learned counsel for the Appellants contended that his
clients would not challenge the Award on merits but would challenge the
quantum of compensation only. The question that arose in my
consideration is, to what amount the respondents are entitled towards
compensation ?
The respondents' asserted in their evidence that monthly
income of Narayan @ Nandkumar was Rs.10,000/- approximately. Narayan
@ Nandkumar had a business, but the respondents-claimants did not bring
material evidence to indicate the actual income of the victim. On the
contrary, it came on record that victim Narayan @ Nandkumar obtained
3 FA 1072/2009
loan of Rs.50,000/- way back in 1997 for the business purpose but
committed default in repayment of the same, and on the day of incident, he
owned to the Bank sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. This indicates that Narayan @
Nandkumar was not quite successful businessman. Apparently he did not
repay the loan amount through installments etc. At the most it can be
assumed that Narayan @ Nandkumar's income was barely sufficient to
maintain his family. On the basis of this assumption, the learned Member
guessed that Narayan @ Nandkumar's monthly income was approximately
Rs.5,000/- per month. Utilizing such figure, further calculations are made.
4.
The question is, whether this estimate though empirical, is
grossly erroneous? Having regard to the years of Narayan @ Nandkumar's
death, the estimated income of Narayan @ Nandkumar @Rs.5,000/- per
month looks more, and therefore, it can be said that the appeal is justifiable.
But, I am not inclined to disturb the finding mainly because the case is
pending since last more than 16 years. The accident took place in 1999.
The Motor Accident Claims Petition was pending for five years and
thereafter it remained pending before this Court since last seven years.
Having regard quite of the respondents who lost their bread earner, the
amount will be granted to them as compensation. It does not reserve to be
disturbed. The amount deposited in the Court shall be handed over to the
respondents-claimants immediately. Appeal stands dismissed.
( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. )
srm/26/8/16
4 FA 1072/2009
