Bombay High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Vaishali Bappa Kate on 13 September, 2022
Bench: S. G. Dige
1
1033.22FA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
994 FIRST APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2022
The Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Amber Plaza building Station Road
Aurangabad.
Through its Officer
Age: Major, Occ. Service
R/o : C/o. Reliance General
Insurance Company Ltd. In front of LIC,
Divisional Office IInd Floor, ABC Complex,
Adalat road, Aurangabad. .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
1] Vaishali w/o. Bappa Kate
Age: 28 years, Occu : Household.
2] Ganesh s/o. Bappa Kate
Age: 11 years, Occu : Education.
3] Umesh s/o. Bappa Kate
Age: 7 years, minor.
Respondent no.2 and 3 are minors
under guardianship of natural
mother resp no.1.
4] Kiskinda w/o. Subhash Kate
Age: 58 years, Occu : Household
5] Subhash s/o. Dnyanoba Kate
Age: 63 years, Occu : Agril.
All R/o. Dhavjyachiwadi,
Tq. Dist. Beed.
6] Chhatrabhuj s/o. Kondiba Tandle
Age : Major, Occu : Owner
R/o. Tandlyachiwadi, Tq. Dist. Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2022 01:16:58 :::
2
1033.22FA
7] Bapurao s/o. Chhatrabhuj Tandle,
Age: major, Occu. Driver,
R/o. Tandlyachiwadi, Tq. Dist. Beed
.. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. R.H.Dahat,
Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Suhas R. Shirsat, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 5.
...
CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.
DATE : 13.09.2022
P.C. :
1] Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5.
2] The issue involved in this appeal is that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is on higher side.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
3] On 30th January, 2018 at about 8.00 p.m.
deceased Bappa Kate was standing in front of Hotel Ashoka
for catching vehicle to return at home. At the relevant time,
Tempo bearing registration No. MH-23/W-1941 was
standing in front of Hotel Ashoka. The driver of aforesaid
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2022 01:16:58 :::
3
1033.22FA
Tempo then took his aforesaid Tempo at reverse side rashly,
negligently and without observing cautiousness and thereby
gave dash to the deceased. Due to said dash, the deceased
fell down and sustained several multiple injuries.
Thereafter, the deceased succumbed to injuries. A crime
was registered against the temp driver.
4] Respondent nos.1 to 5 original claimants filed
claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Beed [for short 'the Tribunal'] for getting compensation.
Considering the evidence on record and after hearing the
parties, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation. The
said judgment and award is under challenge.
5] It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the Tribunal has considered monthly
income of the deceased on higher side. The Tribunal has
granted Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of estate,
which is exorbitant, hence, requested to allow the appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2022 01:16:58 :::
4
1033.22FA
6] It is the contention of the learned counsel for
respondent nos. 1 to 5 that the deceased was agriculturist.
The agricultural land of the claimants is in the name of the
deceased. The deceased was doing milk business also.
Considering these facts, the Tribunal has rightly considered
the income of the deceased as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum,
which is proper. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is
legal and valid.
7] I have heard both learned counsel. Perused the
judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.
8] The issue involved in this appeal is in respect of
the income of the deceased and the compensation granted
under the head of loss of estate. It has come in the evidence
of applicant no.1 that the deceased was doing agricultural
work and the agricultural land is in the name of the
deceased. Apart from doing agricultural work, he was doing
milk business. The Tribunal has considered annual income
of Rs.1,00,000/- p.a. I do not find any infirmity in it.
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2022 01:16:58 :::
5
1033.22FA
9] In respect of loss of estate, the Tribunal has
awarded the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, in my view, it is
exorbitant. As per the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in [2017] 16 SCC 680, I
am considering it Rs.15,000/-.
8] Considering the above reasons, I pass the
following order:-
ORDER
i] Appeal is partly allowed.
ii] The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under
the head of loss of estate to respondent nos.1 to 5 is
reduced to Rs.15,000/-.
iii] Rest of the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is confirmed.
iv] Respondent nos.1 to 5 are directed to refund
the amount of Rs.85,000/-, if withdrawn by them.
1033.22FA
v] The appellant is permitted to withdraw the
amount deposited by the respondent nos.1 to 5.
vi] Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[S.G.DIGE]
JUDGE
DDC
