Bombay High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Yumal Kishore S/O Ramlal Ujawane ... on 9 March, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
fa st.16419.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
First Appeal Stamp No.16419 of 2015
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Shraddha Complex, Telephone Exchange
Square, Nagpur-10,
through Manager, TP Hub,
Nagpur. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Yumalkishore s/o Ramlal Ujawane,
Aged 65 years,
Occupation - Advocate.
2. Asha w/o Yumalkishore Ujawane,
Age 56 years,
Occupation - Household.
Both R/o Sakoli, Tah. Sakoli,
Distt. Bhandara.
3. S. Kumar Wadhawa,
Occupation - Tata Sumo Owner,
R/o D-13, MIDC, Gondia,
Distt. Gondia.
4. Mohd. Ujer s/o Mohd. Aabid Shaikh,
Aged - Major,
Occupation - Tata Sumo Owner,
R/o Toli Ward, Sakoli,
Tah. Sakoli,
Dist. Bhandara.
5. Ajgar Ahmad s/o Ansari Ahmad Sheikh,
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:18:27 :::
2
fa st.16419.15.odt
Aged - Major,
Occupation - Tata Sumo Driver,
R/o Civil Ward, Sakoli,
Tah. Sakoli,
Dist. Bhandara. ... Respondents
Ms Mrunal Naik, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri P.A. Markandeywar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri H.N. Verma, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 9th March, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties, who waive service of notice. None appears
for the other respondents, who have already served with the notice for
final disposal of the matter. It is not necessary to issue fresh notice to
them, as it was made clear in the order dated 4-12-2015 that no fresh
notice shall be issued and the notice issued was for final disposal of
the matter.
2. Neither the claimants nor the Insurance Company is satisfied
with the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal delivered on
30-1-2015 in Claim Petition No.97 of 2012. According to the learned
fa st.16419.15.odt
counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, the insurance
policy placed on record and accepted by the Tribunal deals with the
property damage under Section II-1(ii) therein and the total
compensation payable is only to the extent of Rs.7,50,000/-, but the
claim was made admissible under the policy under Section II-I(1) in
respect of any one accident as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
According to the claimants, the liability should not have been
restricted to Rs.7,50,000/-, and the Tribunal should have awarded the
compensation as payable under Section 166 of the said Act on the
basis of the evidence brought on record. The Tribunal has not dealt
with both these aspects of the matter. The matter will have, therefore,
to be remanded back to the Tribunal by setting aside the award
impugned in this appeal with a direction to decide the matter afresh
within a stipulated period.
3. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award
dated 30-1-2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhandara, in Claim Petition No.97 of 2012, is hereby quashed and set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which shall
decide it afresh in accordance with law, after permitting the parties to
lead evidence, if any. The parties to appear before the Tribunal on
fa st.16419.15.odt
2-4-2016. The Tribunal to decide the claim petition within a period of
six months from the date of first appearance of the parties. The
amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company in this Court
shall be remitted back to the Tribunal along with interest, if any
accrued thereon. The claimants shall be permitted to withdraw the
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- out of the said deposit, and in respect of
balance amount, the Tribunal may pass appropriate orders in
accordance with its final decision.
4. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
