Bombay High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Haryabai Ramrao Shelke And Ors on 6 June, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO.1200 OF 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1200 OF 2008
National Insurance Co.Ltd., having
it's Head Office & Registered Office
at 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata, a
Branch Office Office at Lature and a Divisional
Office at Hazari Chambers, Station Road,
Aurangabad.
...APPELLANT
(Orig.Respdt.No.3)
VERSUS
1. Smt. Haryabai w/o Ramrao Shelke,
Age 42 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Kokanga, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist.
Latur.
2. Madhav s/o Ramrao Shelke, Age 22
years, Occu. Agriculture & Labour,
r/o. Kokanga, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist.
Latur.
...RESPONDENTS
(Orig.Claimants 1 & 2)
3. Mrs. Uma Sanjay Limaye,
Age Major, Occu. Business,
r/o Karad-Nagar, Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
...Respondent
(Orig.Respdt.No.2)
4. Haridas s/o Naryan Kendre,
Age Major, Occu. S.T. Driver,
R/o. S.T. Depot, Ahmedpur.
...Respondent
(Orig.Respdt.No.4)
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:11:00 :::
2 FA NO.1200 OF 2008
5. The Divisional Controller,
M.S.R.T.C., Latur.
...RESPONDENT
(Orig.Respdt.No.5)
6. Raghunath s/o Dagdu Sapkal,
Age Major, occu. Driver of
Mini-Travel Bus ( DELETED)
...RESPONDENT
(Orig.Respdt.No.1)
...
Mr. Mr. R.C.Bora, Advocate, h/f Mr.P.P.Bafna, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mrs. R.D.Reddy, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 & 5.
Respondent no.2 served.
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : JUNE 6th, 2017
***
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal
against the judgment and award passed in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.2/2004, passed by the Motor Acident
Claims Tribunal at Udgir on 11.11.2005.
2. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 had filed the aforesaid
claim petition claiming compensation on account of death
of Ramrao Shelke in a vehicular accident happened on
3 FA NO.1200 OF 2008
10th of May, 2001, having involvement of Mini Bus bearing
registration No. MH-26-C-4584 and S.T.Bus having
registration No. MH-20-D-1773. The learned Tribunal
has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,34,000/- excluding
the amount of No Fault Liability compensation and held the
owner and insurer of the Mini Bus liable to pay the said
amount of compensation to the claimants along with
interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from
the date of application till realization of the amount. The
Tribunal has dismissed the petition against the driver of
the State Transport Bus and the State Transport
Corporation.
3. Shri R.C.Bora, learned Counsel, holding for Shri
P.P.Bafna, learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance
Company, at the outset submitted that though the
Insurance company has raised various grounds in
exception to the impugned award, the Insurance company
is now restricting its challenge to the impugned judgment
only to the extent of quantum of compensation.
4. Learned Counsel submitted that without any
4 FA NO.1200 OF 2008
cogent and sufficient reasons, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.1,34,000/- excluding No Fault Liability
compensation. Learned Counsel submitted that when the
claimants had failed to bring on record any cogent
evidence as about the income of the deceased, the
Tribunal must have determined the amount of dependency
compensation on the basis of notional income. Learned
Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has also
grossly erred in awarding the compensation of Rs.10,000/-
under the head of pain and agony. Learned Counsel,
therefore, prayed for modification of the award.
5. I have carefully perused the impugned
judgment and the other material on record. There
appears no substance in the objection raised on behalf of
the appellant Insurance Company that the amount of
dependency compensation has been determined by the
Tribunal on higher side. The discussion made by the
Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has held the monthly
income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.1,500/- and
deducting one third of it towards the personal expenses of
the deceased has determined the amount of dependency
5 FA NO.1200 OF 2008
compensation. It does not appear to me that the Tribunal
has committed any error in determining the amount of
dependency compensation. However, there appears
substance in the objections raised on behalf of the
appellant Insurance Company that the Tribunal has
wrongly awarded the compensation of Rs.10,000/- under
the heads of pain and agony. No such amount could have
been awarded by the Tribunal. Present was not the
petition filed by an injured claiming compensation on
account of injuries caused to him or disablement sustained
by him in the accident. In fact, when the Tribunal has
awarded compensation towards love and affection and
towards consortium, the Tribunal could not have again
awarded the compensation towards pain and sufferings. To
the aforesaid extent, the impugned award needs to be
modified.
6. In view of the discussion made above, I hold
the appellants entitled to the total compensation of
Rs.1,24,000/-, excluding the No Fault Liability
compensation, instead of the compensation awarded of
Rs.1,34,000/- by the Tribunal. Save and except the
6 FA NO.1200 OF 2008
decrease in the amount of compensation as aforesaid, the
remaining part of the impugned award is kept as it is.
The revised award be prepared accordingly. The Appeal
is, thus, partly allowed. No costs.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/1200-08fa
