Bombay High Court
Smt. Devakabai Panjabrao Kakde, ... vs Manoj S/O Dhondbaji Narnavare, ... on 31 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
fa.1201.08.jud.doc 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1201 OF 2008
Appellants : 1] Smt. Devakabai Panjabrao Kakde,
Aged about 50 years, Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o Kuchadi, Post Titur, Tahsil Kuhi,
District Nagpur.
2] Chandrakant Panjabrao Kakde,
Aged about 25 years, Occupation : Vegetable Seller,
R/o Bidipeth, Nagpur.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] Manoj s/o Dhondbaji Narnavare,
Aged about 35 years, Occu : Owner & Jeep Driver,
R/o Old Sakkardara, Gavandipura,
Besides Bhande Plot, In front of Dhuniwale Dargah,
In line of Kirana Shop, Nagpur.
2] The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Division No.1, Nagpur,
Through Divisional Manager,
Nagpur Corporate Office, Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
None for the Appellants.
Ms. Anita Mategaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 31
MAY, 2017.
st
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
When matter was called out yesterday, nobody appeared for
appellants and only Ms. Anita Mategaonkar, learned Counsel was present for
respondent no.2. Today also learned Counsel for respondent no.2 is only
present.
02] With her assistance, I have perused papers. Only question to be
gone into is whether appellants are entitled to claim any compensation from
respondent no.2 - Insurance Company. If answer to this question is in
affirmative, the latter question would be about quantum of such
compensation.
03] Claimants (appellants) have themselves approached Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') with case that insured
vehicle (Jeep) was taken on hire by deceased Panjabrao for carrying goods
and Panjabrao was travelling in that Jeep as owner of those goods. The
goods were fertilizer bags.
04] Jeep was insured as a private non-commercial vehicle. The
Tribunal has looked into policy [Exh.50]. Policy is a comprehensive policy
which covers risk of damages to vehicle, basic third party liability and towards
accident to 10 occupants at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each as also liability
towards employed driver.
05] In view of this policy and legally permissible user of Jeep, the
admission in claim petition has been used to hold that claimants cannot reach
Insurance Company at all and cannot seek any relief against them.
06] The finding does not appear to be either erroneous or perverse.
07] In view of this finding, it is apparent that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to appellants is not relevant insofar as
Insurance Company is concerned. The owner of vehicle i.e. respondent no.1-
Manoj in this appeal was asked to pay Rs.1,69,000/- as compensation with
future interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. In this appeal, because of
conditional order passed by this Court on 16 th February, 2009, appeal against
respondent no.1 has been dismissed. With the result, amount of
compensation or correctness thereof cannot be gone into by this Court behind
back of Manoj. Accordingly, I answer both the issues against appellants.
Present first appeal is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE
*sdw
