Partly allowed

Smt.Jagubai Tatya Gosavi v. Shri Bhagwan Ganpat Wategaonkar and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2005FA/477/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal for enhancement of motor accident compensation, the court held that the original award was inadequate. It granted 89,000 rupees with interest to the respondents jointly and severally, plus costs before the tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay Rs. 89,000 with 9% interest from the date of filing application and costs before the Tribunal.

Smt.Jagubai Tatya Gosavi Vs Shri Bhagwan Ganpat… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 477 OF 1999

¶5

 Jabubai Tatya Gosavi ..Appellant
 versus

¶6

 Bhagwan Ganpat Wategaonkar

¶7

 & Ors. ..Respondents

¶8

 Mr. S. Banavadikar i/b. R.V. More for the

¶9

 Appellant.

¶10

 Mr. V. B.Rajure for the Respondent No.2.

¶11

 Mr. D. L. Mahadik i/b. S. R. Singh for the

¶12

 Respondent No.3.

¶13

 CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J.

¶14

 DATE : 12TH APRIL,2005

¶15

ORAL ORDER :

¶16

 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

¶17

 2. This appeal is filed by the Appellant -
 Original Applicant No.2 for enhancement of

¶18

 compensation where nine years old child met with an
 accident. The appellant has claimed Rs.89,000/-
 only as compensation. The Tribunal awarded only
 Rs.25,000/- for loss of love, affection and mental
 suffering etc. For enhancement of the compensation

¶19

:2:

¶20

 the present appeal is filed.

¶21

 3. Counsel for the insurance company strongly
 contended that he was an unauthorised passenger and
 Insurance Company is not liable to pay. There is no
 cross appeal by the insurance company. Therefore
 now the court cannot go into that aspect of the
 matter. Awarding compensation at Rs.25,000/- that
 too inclusive of no fault liability is totally
 inadequate and improper. In fact Rs.25,000/- is to
 be granted only for loss of love and affection and
 therefore claim of Rs.89,000/- is perfectly
 justified.

¶22

 4. Counsel for the Insurance company also urged

¶23

 that the owner is exonerated improperly by the
 Tribunal. The owner has been joined in this appeal,
 if the driver could be held liable and responsible
 and also the insurance company was made liable then
 the owner should have been also made liable.

¶24

 Therefore, I pass the following order :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

 . Appeal is partly allowed.

¶27

 . Respondents jointly and severally to pay

¶28

 Rs.89,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing
 of application and costs before the Tribunal. No

¶29

 order as to costs in this appeal.

¶30

:3:

¶31

 12.04.2005 (D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)

Smt.Jagubai Tatya Gosavi v. Shri Bhagwan Ganpat Wategaonkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Jagubai Tatya Gosavi v. Shri Bhagwan Ganpat Wategaonkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs 1. Dagady Rustom Kashi and Others

The Manager, Maharashtra Tourism Dev.Corporation Vs Shri Subhash Gajanan Rane and Another

The State of Maharashtra Vs 1. Dagady Rustom Kashi and Others

Smt.Jagubai Tatya Gosavi Vs Shri Bhagwan Ganpat Wategaonkar and Ors.

Union of India Vs M/S. Eknath Khemchand and Co.

Damodar Janu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra