[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Aruna Raghunath Chaudhari And Others on 29 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:19050
FA 1317 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1317 OF 2016
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Divisional Office,
Divisional Manager, Hajari Chambers,
Station Road, Aurangabad. ... Appellant
[Org. Res. No.2]
Versus
1. Smt. Aruna w/o Raghunath Chaudhari
Age : 40 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. Shivan Nagar, Doodh Dairy Road,
Dhule, District Dhule.
2. Ketan @ Pranay s/o Raghunath Chaudhari
Age : 20 yeas, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Shivan Nagar, Doodh Dairy Road,
Dhule, District Dhule.
3. Mayur @ Harshal s/o Raghunath Chaudhari
Age : 18 yeas, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Shivan Nagar, Doodh Dairy Road,
Dhule, District Dhule.
4. Bechu Nandlal Vishwakarma
Age : Major, Occupation Business,
R/o : 328 Kinnanagar,
Road No. 34, Galli No. 1/W/E,
Thane West, District Thane. ... Respondents
[R. Nos. 1 to 3 Orig.
Claimants and R.No.4
orig. Respondent]
.....
Mr. Sudhir V. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. M. H. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. A. P. Gunge, Advocate for Respondent No.4 (absent)
.....
FA 1317 of 2016
-2-
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 22.04.2026
Pronounced on : 29.04.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. In this appeal by insurance company, there is challenge to the
judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Dhule in M.A.C.P. No. 544 of 2011.
2. It is pointed out that, present respondent nos. 1 to 3 had
instituted M.A.C.P. No. 544 of 2011 by invoking Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), contending that, husband of
claimant no.1, namely Raghunath, was working as a driver on 'i10'
Car bearing no. MH 18 W 4004 and while he was proceeding over
Mumbai-Agra Highway, at that time, his vehicle was given dash by
Tata Sumo bearing No. MH 04 AA 8015 coming from opposite
direction. That, accident was attributed to respondent-opponent no.1
and compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- was sought under various heads,
i.e. from opponent no.1 and present appellant insurance company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that, claimants
had failed to prove that there was negligence only on the part of
FA 1317 of 2016
Sumo driver. Rather, deceased himself was responsible for the
accident and he was negligent. Moreover, here, there was no risk
coverage as per the policy and owner had committed breach of policy
by handing over the vehicle to the driver who had no driving license
to drive.
4. Learned counsel further pointed out that there was no evidence
to hold that Sumo driver was 50% negligent. Therefore, appreciation
and conclusion to that extent is erroneous. Similarly, he criticizes the
grant of compensation on the count that, there to be no reliable and
convincing evidence about income of deceased.
For all above reasons, he seeks indulgence by setting aside the
impugned award.
5. Per contra, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondents-claimants
would justify and support the award of tribunal. On the point of
negligence, he took this court through the spot panchanama and
thereby supports the finding of trial court on the point of negligence.
6. In reply to the submission of breach of policy, it is submitted
that insurance company failed to discharge its burden that driver of
FA 1317 of 2016
the offending vehicle did not have valid license, as RTO authority is
not examined.
7. Regarding evidence on the point of income, it is his submission
that, there is distinct evidence of the employer of deceased and owner
of the vehicle. There is evidence by way of salary certificate at Exhibit
38.
8. Main grounds for contest in this appeal by insurance company
are that, there was no 100% negligence on the part of driver of the
Sumo vehicle, and rather he was only 50% liable. Secondly, there was
breach of policy on account of driver not holding valid/effective
license and thirdly, no valid and acceptable proof of income of
deceased.
9. Heard. Perused the record. It seems that M.A.C.P. No. 544 of
2011 was filed by heirs of deceased Raghunath wherein they
contended that, on 30.01.2011 deceased was behind the wheels of
'i10' car over Mumbai-Agra Highway and one Prabhakar Gite and his
wife were travelling in the said car and while they were near Nashik,
Tata Suma belonging to respondent no.4 came from opposite
direction, first gave dash to the divider and came to the wrong side of
FA 1317 of 2016
the road and thereafter gave dash to the 'i10' car, resulting into the
accident in which Raghunath died on the spot.
10. It was further contended that claimants were totally dependent
on deceased Raghunath and because of his untimely accidental death,
they have lost their only source of income and therefore, under
various heads, they sought compensation to the tune of
Rs.5,50,000/-.
11. It appears form the record that in support of above contentions,
on behalf of all claimants, claimant no.1 tendered affidavit of
evidence Exhibit 28 and along with it, placed copy of FIR, PM report
and spot panchanama. Exhibit 29, which is a report of accident,
seems to be filed by Prabhakar Gite, who was incumbent of the car
and he has categorically stated about the events resulting into the
accident. Therefore, such evidence about accident has gone
unchallenged and consequently, learned tribunal has rightly answered
point no.1 about 'claimants to have proved that Raghunath died in
motor vehicle accident', in affirmative.
12. On the point of negligence on the part of offending vehicle
Sumo is concerned, there is complaint filed by eye witness who has
FA 1317 of 2016
reported that, the Sumo vehicle which was coming from opposite
direction, initially ramped to the divider and came to the road which
was meant for vehicles passing to the opposite direction and
thereafter gave dash to the 'i10' cab driven by deceased and occupied
by eye witness. Spot panchanama Exhibit 30 also fortifies the
contention of claimants and the eye witness about driver of Sumo car
to be rash and negligent. Taking such evidence into account and the
spot panchanama into consideration, contention raised before this
Court that there was contributory negligence also on the part of
deceased, cannot be sustained. Rather, the manner in which Sumo car
has come to the wrong side, clearly indicates complete responsibility
and liability of driver of the Sumo. Consequently even on the point of
rashness and negligence, findings of tribunal cannot be faulted at.
13. As regards to breach of policy on account of driver of offending
vehicle not holding valid license to drive is concerned, except raising
plea, no counter evidence is produced by insurance company and
therefore, as burden has not been discharged by insurance company,
such plea cannot be allowed to be sustained and was also rightly held
so by the tribunal.
FA 1317 of 2016
14. As regards to grant of compensation is concerned, learned
tribunal has made discussion in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12. Claimants
have adduced documentary evidence on the point of age of deceased,
i.e. in the form of school leaving certificate Exhibit 35. On the point of
salary, salary certificate is also placed on record, apart from adducing
evidence of one Sachin Gite at Exhibit 37, who deposed about giving
deceased salary to the tune of Rs.5000/- and he identified salary
certificate Exhibit 38. Such evidence has not been dislodged. Taking
the oral and documentary evidence into account, learned tribunal has
rightly held that it has been proved that deceased was earning
Rs.5000/-. Considering the age, relevant multiplier is applied and
considering the dependency, appropriate deductions are shown to be
made and therefore, no fault can be found in the computation or
grant of compensation. Resultantly, there being no merits in the
appeal, following order is passed :
ORDER
I. The first appeal is hereby dismissed.
II. Respondents-claimants are permitted to withdraw the
remaining amount deposited by the appellant insurance
company in this Court, along with interest accrued thereon.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
