Dismissed

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sandipan Vithoba Sakhare and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2009FA/179/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by insurance company dismissed. The court held that the driving license produced by the appellant belonged to Ashok Halgunde, not the deceased Himmat More. The respondent had not successfully established there was no valid license for the deceased, having impleaded both licenses into evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. No costs awarded.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sandipan Vithoba Sakhare and Ors. — Insurance | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.179/2009

¶5

Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders

¶6

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶7

or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶8

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE :14th July, 2009.

¶9

1)Heard Counsel extensively. With
their assistance, Record and Proceedings
is verified. The appeal is finally heard
and disposed of.

¶10

2)Thegrievanceofthe

¶11

appellant/insurance company is the

¶12

driving license to which reliance was
placed to be belonging to Himmat More,
by itself is wrong as the driving
license was not of Himmat More, but it
was of one Ashok Govind Halgunde.

¶13

3)Duringthecourseof
submissions, it is pointed from

¶14

respondents that the driver of the
offending truck is not arrayed as party

¶15

in the proceeding. The FIR disclosed

¶16

that the impact due to negligent driving

¶17

was by an unknown driver of the truck,

¶18

and consequently, according to the
respondent, it cannot be said that

¶19

¶20

either the vehicle was driven by Himmat
More or that he was not possessing a
valid license.

¶21

4)The deceased was 26 years old.
The learned Judge in spite of there
being certificate, showing that he was
having income of Rs.10,000/- to
12,000/-, a month, notionally treated
the same to be annually Rs.36,000/- and
has applied multiplier of 8 to reach the
conclusion.

¶22

5)The insurance company did not
plead that the vehicle was driven by an
unauthorized driver or that he did not
possess a valid license. That apart, the
evidence of RTO clerk Mr. More does not
accelerate that there is no license of
Himmat More with the RTO Pune. It is
only the evidence concerning particular
license number, specifying that it was
issued in the name of Ashok Halgunde.
With the assistance of learned Counsel
for the appellant/insurance company, I
have put both the licenses in
juxtaposition and surprisingly I found
that the license purporting to be of
Himmat More has blurt digit numbers,
which apparently are contrary to the
license numbers referred in particulars
of Ashok Halgunde. The fact is,
therefore, established that the license
particularsproducedbythe

¶23

¶24

appellant/insurance company were of
Ashok Halgunde and they could not
establish that there was no valid
license of Himmat More. There is no
other point advanced by the appellant
insurance company.

¶25

6)Taking survey of the above
details, I do not find any merit in the
appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.

¶26

bdv/fa179.09

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sandipan Vithoba Sakhare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sandipan Vithoba Sakhare 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

Suresh Pandurang Kamble Vs Sachin Vithalrao Moterao and Ors.

Kasare Education So and Anr. Vs Pundalik Sitaram Desale and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prakash Uttamrao Nalge and Ors.

Umaji Vitoba Kalyankar and Others Vs Kausalyabai W/O Shamrao Deshmukh and Others

Anantrao Shamrao Holikar Vs Tukaram Gopalrao Suryawanshi

Ashok Sukhdeo Suryawanshi Thr Lrs Kamalbai and Ors. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.