Bombay High Court
The Chief Executive Officer, Zp & ... vs Shashikalabai Sandipan Giri And ... on 1 August, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO.196 OF 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.196 OF 2002
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad
2. The Executive Engineer (W)
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad ...APPELLANTS
(Orig. Resp. No. 1 & 4)
VERSUS
1. Shashikalabai W/o. Sandipan Giri,
Age: 35 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Hasegaon, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad
2. Lata D/o. Sandipan Giri,
Age: 15 years, (Minor), U/g.
of appellant No.1, Shashikalabai
W/o. Sandipan Giri, R/o. as above.
3. Kalpana d/o. Sandipan Giri,
Age: 13 years, (Minor),
U/g. of appellant No.1 Shashikalabai
W/o. Sandipan Giri, R/o. as above
4. Ananta Sandipan Giri,
Age: 11 years, (Minor) U/g. of
appellant No.1 Shashikalabai
W/o. Sandipan Giri, R/o. as above,
5. Archana D/o. Sandipan Giri,
Age: 9 years, (Minor), U/g.
of as above
6. Assistant Insurance Director
of Maharashtra, Maharashtra State
Bombay/400051.
::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:32:25 :::
2 FA NO.196 OF 2002
7. Kiran S/o. Manohar Shanme,
Age: 35 years, Occu.:Driver,
R/o. Shivankhed, Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur ...RESPONDENTS
(Respondent No.1 to 5
Org. Claimants & R.
No. 6 & 7 Org. Resp.
No. 2 & 3)
...
Mr. Kailas More, Adv. h/f. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Adv.
for Appellant.
Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent State.
Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1
to 5.
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : August 1st, 2017
***
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against
the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal at Osmanabad, in M.A.C.P.No.231/1995 decided on
22nd of October, 2001. The aforesaid claim petition was filed
by present respondent nos. 1 to 5.
2. Learned Tribunal, after assessing the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record held the original
claimants entitled for total compensation of Rs.58,000/-
inclusive of No Fault Liability compensation. The Tribunal
directed payment of amount of compensation by the present
3 FA NO.196 OF 2002
appellant, and dismissed the claim petition against the Assistant
Insurance Director. Aggrieved thereby, the Zilla Parishad has
preferred present appeal.
3. Shri Kailas More, learned Counsel, holding for
Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits
that there was valid policy for the insured vehicle and the same
was produced on record. However, the terms and conditions of
the said policy have not been properly considered by the
Tribunal. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has
wrongly held that the breach of the policy conditions was
committed by the present appellant by allowing a person not
holding valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle.
Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the
impugned award and to make original respondent no.2 i.e.
Assistant Insurance Director liable to make payment of
compensation and to set aside the impugned order whereby the
present appellant is directed to pay the amount of Rs.58,000/-
to the Assistant Insurance Director, original respondent no.2.
4. Shri Sonpawale, learned A.G.P. for present
respondent no.6 / original respondent no.2, submitted that the
specific defense was raised that the owner of the vehicle has
4 FA NO.196 OF 2002
committed breach of insurance policy by allowing a person not
holding valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle.
Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the Tribunal has recorded
an unambiguous finding in paragraph no.11 of its judgment,
indicating that though there was specific defense, no evidence
was produced on record by the owner of the vehicle to show
that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid
driving license on the date of the accident. Learned A.G.P.
submitted that in such circumstances, no fault can be found
with the finding so recorded by the Tribunal. Learned A.G.P.,
therefore, submitted for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Shri R.V.Naiknavare, learned Counsel for
respondent nos. 1 to 5, supported the impugned judgment and
award and prayed for passing appropriate orders.
6. The short issue that is involved in the present
appeal is whether the breach of the policy condition was proved
as alleged by the original respondent no.2.
7. As has been observed by the Tribunal, the owner
i.e. the present appellant had committed breach of policy
conditions by allowing a person not holding the valid driving
5 FA NO.196 OF 2002
license to drive offending vehicle on the date of the accident.
Nothing has been brought on record in this appeal also or
before the Tribunal to show that the person who was driving the
offending vehicle on the date of the accident was holding valid
driving license. In absence of any such material brought on
record, or any such evidence produced by the owner, it does
not appear to me that the Tribunal has committed any error in
dismissing the petition against the Assistant Insurance Director,
and holding the present appellant solely responsible for
payment of compensation to the claimants.
The First Appeal being devoid of substance, deserves to
be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Pending Civil
Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/196-02fa
