Bombay High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Smt Bhagrathabai Bisram Bhagat ... on 1 March, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa353.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No.353 of 2005
The United India Insurance Company
Ltd.,
through its Branch Manager,
Branch Office : Durg,
Tq. & Distt. Durg [C.G.]. ..... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Bhagrathabai widow of Bisram
Bhagat,
aged about 62 years,
occupation - Nil,
resident if Tilli - Mohgaon,
Tq. Goregaon, Distt. Gondia.
2. Ku. Dileshwari daughter of Kuwarlal
Bhagat,
aged about 21 years,
occupation - Nil,
3. Ku. Meerabai daughter of Kuwarlal
Bhagat,
aged about 19 years,
4. Ku. Lileshwari daughter of Kuwarlal
Bhagat,
aged about 17 years,
occupation - student,
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 00:52:31 :::
fa353.05
2
5. Ku. Yogeshwari daughter of Kuwarlal
Bhagat,
aged about 14 years,
occupation - student,
6. Rajendra son of Kuwarlal
Bhagat,
aged about 12 years,
occupation - student,
respondent nos. 1 to 6 all residents
of Mohagaon [Tilli], Tq. Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia.
7. Mahendrasingh son of Ratansingh
Anchit,
aged about 42 years,
occupation - driver,
resident of Kakodi,
P.S. Chichgrah, Tq. Deori,
Dstt. Gondia.
.....Appeal is abated vide Regr [J's]
order dtd 3-2-15.
8. Nirmalkumar son of Sewalal Jain,
aged about years,
occupation - business,
resident of Bimal Grain Stores,
Hatri Bazar, Durg,
Tq. & Distt. Durg.
.....Appeal is dismissed vide Regr [J's]
order dtd 3-2-15. ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. S. N. Dhanagare, Adv., for the appellant.
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 00:52:31 :::
fa353.05
3
None for the respondents.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date : 01st March, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:
01. By the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant - Insurance Company challenges the
judgment of the Claims Tribunal, dated 9th March, 2005, by which
compensation of Rs.83,000-00 has been directed to be paid to the
claimants.
02. Shri S. N. Dhanagare, learned counsel for the appellant,
submitted that the deceased was riding double seat on the bicycle and
had, thus, contributed to the said accident. There was no evidence on
record to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the respondent no.7. It was urged that the
quantum of compensation as awarded is on a higher side.
03. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6,
fa353.05
though served. With the assistance of learned counsel for the
appellant, I have perused the records of the case.
04. The following point arises for consideration:-
Whether the judgment of the Claims Tribunal deserves
to be interfered with?
05. In support of the claim for compensation, the claimant no.1
examined herself and one Umrao Bopche at Exh.26. No evidence was
led by the truck driver. The second witness examined by the claimants
was riding the bicycle on which the deceased was sitting. After
considering his evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion
that the driver of the matador was rash and negligent in driving the
vehicle, resulting in said accident. After re-appreciating the evidence, I
do not find that the said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal
deserves to be interfered with.
06. The amount of compensation has been calculated by taking
into account notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per year.
It is on that basis that total compensation of Rs.1,33,000-00 came to
be granted. I do not find that this amount deserves to be reduced in
the present appeal. The point as framed is answered by holding that
no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
fa353.05
07. As a result, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal stands
confirmed. Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
