Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The United India Insurance ... vs Bashirkhan Gafarkhan
2017 Latest Caselaw 2851 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 2851 Bom
Judgement Date : 7 June, 2017

Bombay High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Bashirkhan Gafarkhan on 7 June, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
                                     1                         FA 3.2003.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        FIRST APPEAL NO.3 OF 2003

     The United India Insurance Company Limited,
     City Branch Office,
     Malhar Cinema Building, 2nd Floor,
     Gokhle Road, Naupada,
     Thane-400 062.                      ...APPELLANT..

             VERSUS

     1.      Bashirkhan S/o Gaffarkhan,
             Age. 30 years, Occu. Nil,
             R/o. Hari File, Khamgaon,
             Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana.  .orig applicant.

     2.      Sk. Isa, S/o Sk. Chand,
             Age. 55 years, Occu. Transport Business,
             R/o. Atali, Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana.

     3.      Amul Vasant Gule,
             Owner & driver of truck No. MWD-2410,
             Since deceased during the
             pendency of this proceeding,
             through his L.Rs. As per Ex. 23.

             1.       Anamika Amul Gole,
                      Age. 26 years, Occu. Service,

             2.       Abhay Amul Gole,
                      Age. 5 years, Minor through
                      mother No. 1

             3.       Vasant Bhikoba Gole,
                      Age. 61, Occu. Service,
                      (abated)

             4.       Sau. Yamunabai, w/o Vasant Gole,
                      Age. 57 years, Occu. Household,

     aaa/-




::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:54:30 :::
                                         2                       FA 3.2003.odt

                      All R/o. Remond Woolen Mills,
                      Staff Quarter, J.K. Gram,
                      Thane-6.
                      (abated)

     4.        Amul Vasant Gule,
               (deleted)

     5.        The New India Assurance Company
               (deleted)

     6.       The New India Assurance Company,
              Branch Malkapur,
              Dist. Buldhana.               ...RESPONDENTS..
                                      ...         
                Mr D V Soman, Advocate for the Appellant.
             Mr Kalyan Patil h/f Mr. S.R.Barlinge, advocate for 
                             respondent No.1.
                                     ...
                               CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.

Dated: June 07, 2017 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and Award

passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

jalgaon dated 18.2.1994 in MACP No.138/1987, the

original respondent no.6 insurer has preferred this

appeal.

2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal are as

follows :-

a] The respondent-original claimant Bashirkhan was

aaa/-

3 FA 3.2003.odt

serving as a driver with respondent Sk. Isa and on

21.2.1987 he was carrying oil cakes in the truck bearing

registration No.MHV-9594 from Khamgaon to

Nandurbar. On way, within the limits of village Parola at

about 6.00 am one truck bearing registration No.MWD-

2410 coming from the opposite direction in high speed

gave dash to the truck of the claimant Bashirkhan by

coming to the wrong side of the road. In consequence of

which, claimant Bashirkhan had sustained injuries to

his left hand, right leg, fracture on his left hand wrist

and right leg. He was required to take treatment for 3-4

months in the hospital. He had sustained fractured

injuries on his left wrist, which resulted into permanent

disablement. He was not in a position to use his hand

below wrist. He had to give up his service as driver. He

was getting Rs.1,500/- p.m. from respondent Shaikh

isa. Thus, the claimant Bashirkhan had approached

the Tribunal for grant of compensation under various

heads.

b] The driver cum owner of the truck bearing

aaa/-

4 FA 3.2003.odt

registration No.MWD-2410 also died in the said

accident. His legal representatives are brought on

record.

c] Respondent No.5-Insurer of truck No.MHV-9594

filed written statement and strongly resisted the claim

petition with the contention that the accident had taken

place mainly on account of the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the truck bearing registration

no.MWD-2410.

d] The appellant-insurer of the truck MWD-2410

strongly resisted the claim petition by filing his written

statement. It has been contended that there was no

negligence on the part of the driver of the truck MWD

2410 and that the accident had taken place on account

of rash and negligent driving by claimant Bashir Khan

himself.

e] The claimant Bashir Khan adduced oral and

documentary evidence in support of his contentions,

however, respondents including appellant-insurer have

aaa/-

5 FA 3.2003.odt

not adduced any evidence. The learned Member of the

Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and

directed the owner of vehicle bearing registration

no.MWD-2410 and its insurer i.e. the appellant to pay

compensation of Rs.92,500/- alongwith interest with

proportionate costs. Hence, this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant insurer

submits that, this is a case of head on collision between

the said two trucks and claimant Bashirkhan was

driving the truck bearing registration No.MHV-9594

involved in the accident. Learned counsel submits that,

this is a case of composite negligence, however, tribunal

has fastened the liability on owner of truck bearing

registration No.MWD-2410 and its insurer i.e. the

appellant.

4. The learned counsel for respondent/original

claimant submits that, the claimant has examined

himself before the Tribunal and deposed that after

noticing the truck coming from the opposite direction in

aaa/-

6 FA 3.2003.odt

speed, he had taken his truck to the left side and gave

signal to the driver of the truck bearing registration

no.MWD-2410. Even then, the driver of the said truck

has not reduced the speed of the truck and given dash

to his truck by coming on wrong side of the road.

Learned counsel submits that, evidence of the petitioner

is consistent with the contents of the spot panchnama

exh.38. The appellant-insurer has not examined any

witness to substantiate its contention that the claimant

was also responsible for the accident and as such, it is a

case of composite negligence. The learned Member of

the tribunal has therefore, rightly recorded the findings

in the affirmative to issue no.1 and thereby held that

the accident had taken place on account of the

negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle

bearing registration no.MWD-2410 alone and that

claimant Bashirkhan had not contributed the negligence

in any manner. Learned Member of the Tribunal has

awarded just and reasonable compensation. No

interference is required.

aaa/-

7 FA 3.2003.odt

5. On perusal of the evidence and impugned

judgment and Award, it appears that, the claimant has

deposed that, after noticing the said truck bearing

registration No.MWD-2410, he has taken his truck

towards left side of the road and also gave signal to the

driver of the said truck, however, the driver of the said

truck has not paid any heed to the said signal and given

dash to his truck by coming to the wrong side of the

road. On careful perusal of the contents of the spot

panchnama exh.38, it appears that the truck bearing

registration No.MHV-9594 being driven by the claimant

Bashirkhan found by the side of the tar road in turtled

condition. The claimant Bashirkhan has also deposed

that the said truck bearing registration No.MWD-2410

came to the wrong side in high speed and given dash to

his truck and in consequence of which, his truck was

thrown away from the road and turned turtled. It thus,

appears that his evidence is fully corroborated by the

contents of the spot panchnama exh.38. Though, the

driver side of both the vehicles got damaged in the

accident, in the judgment of acquittal Criminal Court

aaa/-

8 FA 3.2003.odt

observed that, defence raised by the accused (Bashir

Khan) appears to be probable and only because death of

driver of other vehicle occurred, no inference about

negligence on the part of the claimant Bashir Khan

could be inferred. On the basis of evidence on record,

the learned Member of the Tribunal has rightly recorded

the findings that the accident took place due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing

registration No.MWD-2410 and that the claimant

Bashirkhan has not contributed the negligence.

6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned,

the learned Member of the Tribunal has rightly assessed

the future loss of income on account of disablement

sustained by the claimant Bashirkhan.

7. In view of the same, I do not find any fault in the

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. No

interference is required. There is no substance in the

appeal. Hence, following order.

aaa/-

                                         9                         FA 3.2003.odt

                                   O R D E R 

               I.         First   Appeal   is   hereby   dismissed   with 
                          costs.


               II.        Respondent-original   claimant   is   hereby 

permitted to withdraw the compensation alongwith accrued interest, if any, deposited by the appellant-insurer before this Court or the Tribunal.

III. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

sd/-

( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...

aaa/-

aaa/-

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter