Bombay High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Shri. Pinto Kallu Sharm And Ors. on 11 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:48738
59-FA-1993-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1993 OF 2024
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. }
Chintamani Avenue, 4th Floor, Opp }
Western Express Highway, Next to Virwani }
Industrial Estate, Goregaon (East), }
Mumba-400063 }
(Insurer of M/Taxi No.MH-01-BD-1063) } Appellant
Versus
1. Shri.Pinto Kallu Sharma }
Age-36 years, R/at Dwarkadas Mansion, }
Gala No.57, Vegetable Market, SVP Road, }
Prarthana Samaj, Girgaon, Mumbai- }
400004 }
2. Mr. Sabir Husain Baig Khan }
Building Room No.1, Sant Sewa Marg, }
Victoria Road, Byculla, Mumbai-27 }
3. Mr.Rajkaran Ramlakhan Singh }
68/2, Ramwadi Kavel Cross Lane No.3, }
Kalbhadevi, Mumbai-400002 }
(Owner of M/Taxi No.MH-01-AT-1477) } ....Respondents
----
Mrs.Shalini Shankar, for the Appellant.
Mr.S.R. Gupta, for the Respondents.
----
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 11th NOVEMBER 2025
N.S. Kamble page 1 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:20:49 :::
59-FA-1993-2024.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
. By consent of both sides heard finally.
2. This Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 ('M.V. Act.' for short) takes exception to the
judgment and award dated 24th November 2023 passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai ('MACT' for short) in
Application No.197 of 2018 whereby the Claimant in the injury
claim was granted compensation of sum of Rs.11,46,972/- with
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the Application till
realization of the amount
3. The parties are referred to as per nomenclature in the
original proceedings for the sake of convenience.
4. The Claimant filed claim with the contention that on
9th July 2017 at about 7.00 a.m. he was was standing at the signal
of opera house square for crossing a SVP road, at that time, a taxi
No.MH-01-BD-1063 came in high speed from Girgaon
Chowpaty side, was proceeding towards Prathana Samaj, it
dashed against another taxi bearing No.MH-01-AT-1477. As as
result of the said dash the said vehicle became turtle and fell on
N.S. Kamble page 2 of 8
59-FA-1993-2024.doc
the Claimant resultantely he sustained serious injuries. He was
admitted in JJ hospital for treatment. He claims to have sustained
permanent physical disability, which was assessed by Dr.Khanna
who issued Disability Certificate certifying permanent partial
disability at 56%. The Claimant further claimed to have spend
on medical treatment. Under various heads he claimed
compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.
5. The owner of taxi bearing No.MH-BD-1063 as well
as MH-01-AT-1477 failed to appear before the Tribunal and
claim proceeded ex-party against them. The Insurer filed
whether statement denying the contentions of the Claimant. It is
the case of the Insurer that, the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the Claimant and that the claim is not maintainable
for non-joinder of the driver of the taxies to the proceedings. It is
also alleged that, there is breach of terms of policy issued in
respect of vehicle bearing registration No.MH-01-BD-1063 on
the ground of the driver of the said vehicle not having effective
license during the relevant time. There is however, no dispute
made with regard to the fact that, both vehicles involved in the
N.S. Kamble page 3 of 8
59-FA-1993-2024.doc
accident were duly insured with the Appellant-Insurer at the
relevant time.
6. The Tribunal framed issued at Exhibit-16. Claimant
examined himself at Exhibit-18 and also led evidence of
Dr.Naresh Khanna at Exhibit-27. Insurer on the other hand
examined Akshada Myana at Exhibit-31 and also led evidence of
Mr.Sachin Nair at Exhibit-35. The Tribunal allowed the claim.
Hence, this Appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that
the Tribunal has committed error in not considering the
negligence on the part of the Claimant while standing on the
road. She further argued that, the Insurer has substantiated its
contention by leading evidence in respect of breach of conditions
of policy and as such there ought to have been an order of pay
and recover. She also took exception to the assessment of
disability of the Claimant and computation of compensation on
the ground that the employment and income has not been proved
by the Claimant so also there is excessive medical bills granted by
the Court.
N.S. Kamble page 4 of 8
59-FA-1993-2024.doc
8. The learned counsel for the Claimant supported the
impugned order and award. It is his submission that, the
Claimant by examined himself and relying upon Police papers as
proved that there is no negligence on his part in the occurrence of
the accident, and there is no contrary evidence led by the
opponents to prove otherwise. It is his further submission that
from the testimony of the Claimants and more particularly from
the cross-examination it can be seen that, the Tribunal has
accepted reasonable amount of Rs.8,000/- per month towards the
income of the Claimant, which is reasonable and there is no
reason and justification to cause interference in the
compensation computed by the Tribunal. In response to
argument of Appellant about pay and recover order, he drew
attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the Tribunal in
Paragraph 22 of the award. It is his submission that since, both
vehicles were insured with the Appellant Insurer, there is no
question of passing any order of the pay and recover, as the
owners of both vehicles were jointly severally liable to pay the
compensation.
N.S. Kamble page 5 of 8
59-FA-1993-2024.doc
9. Perusal of the pleading and evidence on record
indicates that the Claimant was standing on the road. The Police
papers indicate about there being occurrence of an incident of
dashed given by one taxi to another which has ultimately resulted
into causing of injuries to the Claimant. Having regard to the
evidence on record, it can not be said that, the Claimant was
negligent and contributed in the occurrence of the accident in
any manner whatsoever.
10. Insofar as age, employment and income of the
Claimant, he led specific evidence to that effect that, he was
working as a driver and was drawing Rs.18,000/- per month as
salary. In the cross-examination it is suggested to the Claimant
that now he works in a Courier company and earns Rs.12,000/-
per month. In the light of this fact, it can held that the
acceptance of the income of the Claimant at Rs.8,000/- per
month by the Tribunal is reasonable requiring no interference
therein.
11. As far as the permanent disability is concerned apart
from the evidence of Claimant himself, there is testimony of
N.S. Kamble page 6 of 8
59-FA-1993-2024.doc
Dr.Khanna, who is orthopedic surgeon and examined the
Claimant on 10th November 2018. He assessed partial permanent
disability of the Claimant to the extent of 56%. During the cross-
examination it is not brought on record that Dr.Khanna is not
competent to assessed the disability. Merely because he is not
treating doctor, his assessment cannot be discarded. In absence of
any material brought on record to discard the testimony of the
doctor, this Courts finds that acceptance of the disability of 56%
by Tribunal to be proper.
12. There is no dispute about the fact that, considering
the age and income of the Claimant, appropriate multiplier has
been applied for the purpose of the determination of
compensation after considering the future prospects. The
computation of compensation as done by the Tribunal is
inconsonance with the evidence on record so also settled position
of law.
13. Finally coming to the issue sought to be raised by the
counsel for the Appellant about order is being required to be
passed of pay and recover, the Insurer had led evidence in order
N.S. Kamble page 7 of 8
59-FA-1993-2024.doc
to indicate that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having
license during the relevant time. However, it is undisputed fact
that, both the vehicle involved in the accident were duly insured
with the Appellant-Insurer. Since, the Claimant is third party, it
is open for him to claim compensation from both or any of the
Opponents. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the said issue
and has held that since, the Appellant-Insurer is liable to pay
compensation having insured both vehicles, there is no
proprietary in passing any order of pay and recover. In the facts
of the case, this Court finds no perversity in the said order in
order to cause interference.
14. As a result of above discussion, the Appeal stands
dismissed.
15. All pending Civil and Interim Applications are
disposed of.
(R.M. JOSHI, J.)
N.S. Kamble page 8 of 8
