Bombay High Court
Shashiprabha H. Agrawal & Anor vs Sraswatibai Amarsing Patil on 3 October, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 fa403.08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.403/2008
1. Sau. Shashiprabha H. Agrawal,
aged about Yrs., Occu.
R/o Chandur Railway,
Tq. Chandur Railway,
Distt. Amravati.
2. Ramdas S/o Haribhau Raut,
aged about 45 Yrs., Occu. Driver,
R/o Chandur Railway,
Tq. Chandur Railway,
Distt. Amravati. ig ..Appellants.
..Vs..
Saraswatabai Amarsing Patil,
aged about 45 Yrs., Occu. Labour,
R/o Sonegaon, Tq. Chandur Railway,
Distt. Amravati. ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri Anand Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri C.A. Babrekar, Advocate for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 22.9.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
C.A.F. NO.2281/2016
Heard Shri Anand Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants and Shri C.A.
Babrekar, Advocate for the respondent.
Considering the nature of controversy, the prayer for grant of early
hearing is granted. The civil application is allowed.
2. In the claim petition filed by the respondent - claimant seeking
2 fa403.08
compensation for the death of her husband in the accident, an application under
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed which is allowed by the
impugned order. The order passed by the Tribunal is challenged by the appellants
on the ground that the Insurance Company with which the vehicle involved in the
accident was insured is necessary party to the claim petition and was not impleaded.
The appellants relied on the provisions of Rule 260(3) of the Maharashtra Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 to support the contention. The judgment given in the case of
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Aurangabad V/s. Suman Bhaskar Pawar and others
reported in 2010(2) Mh.L.J. 177 is also relied upon on behalf of the appellants.
The learned Advocate for the claimant has supported the impugned order.
3. After hearing, the following point arises for consideration:
Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is proper ?
4. The challenge raised on behalf of the appellants relying on the provisions
of Rule 260(3) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is misconceived. The
provisions of Rule 260(3) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deal with
the procedural aspect and require that the Tribunal should ensure that notice is given
to the owner and insurer involved in the accident and the owner and insurer should
be called upon to appear not later than 15 days from the date of issuance of notice.
The object of this Rule is to facilitate speedy disposal of the claim petition and the
notice period is laid down as 15 days. The above Rule does not require the claimant
to implead the insurance company and the Rule cannot be read to mean that the
claim of the claimant cannot be considered by the Tribunal if the insurance company
3 fa403.08
is not impleaded.
In my view, the order passed by the Tribunal is proper and does not
require any interference.
The appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten
Thousand Only) to be paid by the appellant No.1 (owner of the vehicle) to the
respondent (claimant).
The amount of costs shall be paid and receipt shall be produced on record
of the Tribunal within one month, failing which the Tribunal shall pass appropriate
orders against the present appellant No.1.
The amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) deposited
by the appellants before this Court, alongwith interest, should be given to the
claimant.
The balance amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only)
shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the interest being
chargeable from 5th February, 2008 (from the date of the impugned order) till the
amount is paid to the claimant.
This amount shall be paid by the appellants to the claimant and receipt
shall be produced on record of the Tribunal within one month, failing which the
Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders against the appellants considering it to be
non-compliance of the order passed by this Court.
As the claim petition is of 2007, the Tribunal is directed to dispose the
claim petition within six months.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
4 fa403.08
CERTIFICATE
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment/Order".
Uploaded By : N.V. Tambaskar. Uploaded On : 3.10.2016.
Personal Assistant.
