Bombay High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Dattatraya Janardhan Wandhekar ... on 8 October, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
FA-2829 of 2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.2829 OF 2017
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Divisional Manager,
Adalat Road, Aurangabad ..Appellant
Vs.
1. Dattatraya Janardhan Wandhekar,
Age : 37 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Mukindpur, Tq. Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Jawed Mohammad Latif Mansuri,
Age : Major, Occ. Business,
r/o. Vicky Colony, Shirpur,
Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule
3. Siraj Mahammad Fakruddin,
Age : Major, Occ. Driver,
r/o. Gawadi, Tq. Nivali,
Dist. Badwani (Madhya Pradesh) ..Respondents
----
Mr.A.G.Kanade, Advocate for appellant
Mr.R.B.Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2021
ORDER :-
The insurance company has filed this appeal challenging
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Newasa ("the Tribunal", for short) in Motor Accident Claim
2 FA-2829 of 2017
Petition No.384 of 2014. Vide the impugned judgment and award, a
sum of Rs.7,33,979/- has been directed to be paid as compensation
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2. The claim petition was filed by the son for compensation
on account of death of his father-Janardan in an accident involving
motor vehicle. The deceased-Janardan was a retired school teacher.
He breathed his last at the age of 65 years. The Tribunal granted
compensation on account of loss of dependency of Rs.6,04,860/-.
Rest of the amount under other heads is reimbursement of medical
expenses, loss of love and affection, etc.
3. Mr.A.G.Kanade, learned counsel for the appellant -
insurance company, would submit that the claimant was not
depending on the deceased. The claimant has admitted to have
been in service as a primary teacher. According to learned counsel,
the Tribunal, therefore, ought not to have awarded compensation on
account of loss of dependency.
4. Mr.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent-
claimant, would, on the other hand, submit that the deceased and
the claimant were residing together. The deceased used to
3 FA-2829 of 2017
contribute his entire pension for maintenance of both of them.
As such, due to untimely demise of the father, the claimant suffered
incalculable loss and his financial support discontinued, as a result of
which, the standard of living of the claimant has been affected.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded
compensation on account of loss of consortium and future prospects.
He, therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.
5. It was a family of the claimant and his father (deceased).
Although the father was claimed to be 67 years of age when he
breathed his last, there was evidence to suggest that he was 72
years of age when he met with the accident. The deceased was a
pensioner. The claimant is the only son of the deceased. Both were
residing together. Although the claimant has been serving as primary
teacher, due to untimely death of his father, he lost financial support.
It, therefore, could not be said that the claimant was not depending
on the deceased. It, however, appears that the amount of
compensation awarded is on higher side. To meet the ends of
justice, it would be desirable to reduce the amount of compensation
granted by the Tribunal, by Rs.1,00,000/-.
4 FA-2829 of 2017
6. The appeal, therefore, partly succeeds in terms of the
following order:-
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned award is modified reducing the amount of
compensation to Rs.6,33,979/-. Rest of the terms of the
impugned award to stand unaltered.
(iii) The amount in deposit, if any, with this Court or the
Tribunal, be paid to the claimant along with interest
accrued thereon.
(iv) Balance amount, if any, be paid back to the insurance
company with interest accrued thereon.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
