Bombay High Court
The Divn. Manager, New India ... vs Shankar Vithobaji Chaoudhary And ... on 30 March, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa68.07.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.68 OF 2007
APPELLANT: The Divisional Manager, New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., Having its office at
D.O.II, Udyam Building, West High
Court Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Shankar S/o Vithobaji Choudhary, aged
about 58 years, Occ: Nil,
(On R.A.) ig 2. Smt. Shantabai @ Parwatabai W/o
Shankar Choudhary, aged about 54
years, Occ: Household,
3. Raju S/o Shankar Choudhary, aged
about 30 years, Occ: Not known,
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 All resident of
Near Railway Cabin, Shantinagar,
Nagpur.
4. Ravindra S/o Mahadeorao Khante, aged
Major, Occ: Business, R/o Raut Chowk,
Naik Talao Road, Lalganj, Nagpur.
Shri A. J. Pophaly, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Asgar Hussain, Advocate for the respondents.
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 30
MARCH, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
fa68.07.odt 2/4
Vehicles Act, 1988 takes exception to the judgment dated 21-9-2006
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur thereby awarding
an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to the claimants by holding the appellant as
well as the owner of the vehicle jointly and severally liable.
2. One Vinod Choudhary was working as a cleaner on the
vehicle owned by the respondent No.4. Said vehicle met with an
accident on 29-5-2000. The parents of the deceased filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the said Act claiming compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/-. The owner of the vehicle did not contest the proceedings.
The appellant filed its written statement at Exhibit-15 and denied its
liability. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation with interest @ 8% per annum.
Hence, this appeal.
3. Shri A. J. Pophaly, learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant could not have been held liable to satisfy
the claim. It was submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not having
a valid driving license. Similarly, the income of the deceased was
considered on the higher side. The multiplier as applied was also
incorrect. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is liable
to be set aside as against the appellant.
4. Shri Asgar Hussain, learned Counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 opposed aforesaid submissions. He submitted that no specific
defence was raised by the appellant nor was any breach of policy proved
by it. It was submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the
fa68.07.odt 3/4
notional income of the deceased and by applying multiplier of 17, the
compensation has been awarded. It is submitted that there is no reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment.
5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties,
I have gone through the records of the case and perused the impugned
judgment.
6. The following point arises for consideration:
Whether any case is made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment?
ig The evidence on record indicates that the deceased was
aged about 20 years and was working as a cleaner on the vehicle owned
by the respondent No.4. He was stated to have earned Rs.3000/- per
month. On that basis, the claim for compensation was made. The
Claims Tribunal, however, found that as there was no evidence to show
the income of the deceased, notional income was required to be
calculated. Accordingly,notional income of Rs.15000/- per annum was
calculated. On that basis, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per annum was the
amount of loss of dependency for the claimants. By applying the
multiplier of 17, total compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- was arrived at as
loss of dependency. By granting amounts towards pain and agony as
well as funeral expenses, total compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- was
awarded.
8. The record does not indicate that any evidence was led by
the appellant to prove its stand regarding breach of policy as taken in
fa68.07.odt 4/4
the written statement. Considering said fact, it cannot be said that the
Tribunal committed any error in partly allowing the claim application.
Hence, point as framed is answered by holding that there is no case
made out to interfere with the impugned judgment.
9. In view of aforesaid, the judgment dated 21-9-2006 in
Claim petition No.387/2000 is confirmed. The first appeal is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
10. The balance amount of compensation along with accrued
interest be paid to the respondents proportionately as directed by the
Claims Tribunal. There would be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
