Shriram General Insurance Co. ... vs Syed Samdani Syed Jeelani And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1581 Bom

                                       (1)                                fast27085.19

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 925 FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 27085 OF 2019

          SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR ITS
                     AUTHORIZED OFFICER
                             VS
              SYED SAMDANI SYED JEELANI AND ORS

 Mr. Vinayak Narayan Upadhye, Advocate for the appellant
 Mr. Quadri Taher Ali, Advocate for respondent No.1

                                     CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J.
                                      DATE : 22-01-2021

 P. C.

 .                Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel
 representing the respondent No. 1.


 2.                In brief, it is the contention of the learned counsel for
 the appellant that the judgment and order passed by the tribunal is
 perverse and not sustainable in law. It is pointed out that as per the
 facts pleaded in the claim petition and the documents relied in
 support of the claim, the applicant was traveling in a jeep which hit
 the standing truck standing by the side of the road from its back
 side.     The     accident    was    occurred   at   about     09.00       pm.      The
 panchanama reflects the width of the tar road as 25 feet with 5 feet
 kaccha road on both the sides of road. The truck was found to be
 standing to its extreme left from the mid of tar road. In spite of this
 facts the tribunal has apportioned the liability in the ratio of 50-50

                                                                                   1 of 3



::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 15:58:29 :::
                                        (2)                                fast27085.19

 amongst two vehicles. It is submitted that the evidence on record
 makes out no case to hold the driver of the truck liable to pay the
 compensation. It is further pointed out that the applicant has failed
 to examine the witness to prove the permanent disability. It is
 observed in the judgment that though the certificate of disability
 produced on record showing permanent disability to the extent of
 30%, the Medical Officer who issued the certificate not examined
 still in absence of proof of certificate of disability tribnunal has
 inferred the permanent disability sustained by the applicant to the
 extent of 25%. In this background, the learned counsel submits
 that the judgment and order passed by the tribunal is perverse and
 not sustainable in law. The appellant has good case to succeed in
 the appeal.


 3.               On due consideration of the submissions advanced and
 the challenge raised in the appeal, I am of the view that the appeal
 deserves to be admitted. Hence, the following order.


                                       ORDER

                  i.       Admit.


                  ii.      Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Quadri Taher

Ali, Advocate accepts the notice for respondent Nos. 1.

iii. Call R & P with paper book.

                                                                                   2 of 3




                                        (3)                                fast27085.19

                  iv.      Hearing of appeal is expedited.




                                                [ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ]

VishalK/fast27085.19

3 of 3