Bombay High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Habibun Nisha Shaikh And Ors on 24 February, 2022
Bench: Virendrasingh Gyansingh Bisht
7-FA-344-2021.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2411 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2021
Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited ...Appellant
Versus
Habibun Nisha Shaikh & Ors. ...Respondents
......
Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/b KMC Legal Venture for the Appellant.
Mr.Bharat Gadhavi for the Respondents.
......
CORAM: V.G.BISHT, J.
DATE: 24th February, 2022
PC:-
1. The present appeal which impugns the judgment
and award of learned Member, C.R. No. 7, M.A.C.T.,
Mumbai on 18th January, 2020 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 876
of 2013 deserves to be rejected on the short point which
is sought to be canvassed and argued by learned counsel
for the appellant, being that the various parameters laid
down in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay
Sethi, cannot be made applicable, since the accident
took place prior to the said decision.
Trupti 1/5
7-FA-344-2021.DOC
2. The claimants before the M.A.C.T. were the mother
and children of deceased Nizamuddin Shaikh, who was
working as a driver and earning Rs. 8,000/- pm. On 4 th
March, 2013, the driver of ofending tanker bearing No.
GJ-16-SX-6963 containing LPG gas was proceeding from
Chembur towards Vashi via Sion Panvel Highway, drove
the vehicle in a fast speed and in a rash and negligent
manner. Because of that, the driver lost the control over
the vehicle and ultimately dashed against the pillar on
Mankhurd bridge. The tanker of LPG gas fell down in the
nala exactly below the bridge and because of gas
leakage, fre took place in which 14 persons sustained
injuries and 12 vehicles were damaged. The deceased
succumbed to the serious burn injuries.
3. The above incident resulted into registration of C.R
No. 54 of 2013 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and
285 of the Indian Penal Code in Govandi Police Station
against the driver of ofending tanker. Hence, the claim
petition.
4. Learned Member framed various issues and found
that the accident in question took place because of
negligent driving of driver of the ofending tanker bearing
bearing No. GJ-16-SX-6963. Learned member also came
to the conclusion that deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/-
p.m. and accordingly passed the impugned order.
Trupti 2/5
7-FA-344-2021.DOC
5. Perused record.
6. It appears that arising out of the same incident, the
legal representatives of other victims had also preferred
the claim petition, which was allowed by learned Member.
Against which, the insurance company had preferred First
Appeal (St.) No. 5465 of 2020. This Court vide order
dated 7th December, 2021 dismissed the appeal holding
that negligence of diver of the ofending tanker was well
established by the claimants. I have no reason to take a
diferent view than the view taken by this Court in the
said appeal.
7. As far as objection of learned counsel for the
appellant as to the parameters laid down in case of
National Insurance Company v Pranay Sethi1 of
being not applicable is concerned, same cannot be
accepted for the reason that the claim petition was
decided by learned Member, MACT on 18 th January, 2020
and the compensation came to be awarded by taking the
factors which have been determined in Pranay Sethi,
which is a binding judgment on the date on which the
petition was decided by learned Member.
8. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned,
the tribunal applied the principle laid down in Sarla
1 2017 ACJ 2700
Trupti 3/5
7-FA-344-2021.DOC
Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation2 and National
Insurance Company (supra).
9. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant has only disputed the earning income of
deceased.
10. I have also gone through the evidence of mother of
deceased, namely, Smt.Habibun Nisha Jabbar Shaikh, who
clearly stated in her evidence that the deceased was a
driver with Singh Water Supplies and was earning
Rs. 8,000/- p.m. Except general denial in the cross-
examination, there is nothing to disbelieve the statement
of mother of deceased.
11. In my considered view, the learned Member
committed no illegality in coming to the conclusion that
the income of deceased at the time of incident was
Rs.8,000/- p.m. Rest of the calculations done by learned
Member are also in consonance with the judgments relied
upon by him. I again do not fnd any fault with those
fndings.
12. In view of above, I do not fnd merit in the appeal
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
2 2009 ACJ 1298
Trupti 4/5
7-FA-344-2021.DOC
14. Respondents/ claimants are entitled to withdraw the
entire amount of compensation, if not withdrawn,
deposited by the insurance company along with interest
accrued till the date of its withdrawal.
15. In view of above, nothing remains in the interim
application and the same is accordingly disposed of.
16. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/ deposited in this
Court at the time of fling of appeal shall be transferred to
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai.
(V.G.BISHT, J. )
Digitally
signed by
TRUPTI
TRUPTI SADANAND
SADANAND BAMNE
BAMNE Date:
2022.02.26
19:02:19
+0530
Trupti 5/5
