Appeal against dismissal of compensation claim under Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court held the original rejection was erroneous given proof of minor injuries and awarded 15,000 Rupees with interest.
Respondents to pay Rs. 15,000 compensation plus 8% interest on default within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
fa378-96
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 378 OF 1996
Mahadu Ranga Ahire (Bhil),
Age : 32 years, Occu. Labourer,
R/o Dhamane, Tal. and District
Dhule.APPELLANT
VERSUS
1.Iliyaskhan Fattekhan Pathan,
Age : 36 years, c/o B.M. Rawool,
Govt. Contractor, Registered
owner of MHS/2572, R/o 219,
Jaihind Colony, Parvati Sadan,
Deopur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
(Appeal is abated as against
this Respondent as per Additional
Registrar's order dated 5/9/2000)
2.Babji Mahadeo Rawool,
Age : 45 years, Govt. Contractor,
Transporter & Regd. Owner of M.V.
MHS/2572, R/o Parvati Sadan, 219,
Jaihind Colony, Deopur, Dhule.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., having its Regd. office at New India Assurance Bldg. 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay - 400 023. RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. Dhiraj Jethalia, advocate holding for
Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel for the appellant.
Appeal is abated against Respondent No. 1.
None appears for Respondent No. 2, though served.
Mr. V.N. Upadhye, advocate for Respondent No. 3.
.....
fa378-96
(2)
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 28th FEBRUARY, 2012
ORAL JUDGEMENT :
1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2.Aggrieved by the dismissal of the
application for compensation under section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the present appeal is preferred
by the original claimant/applicant.
3.The accident in question occurred on 23rd
November, 1983 wherein a Dumper vehicle bearing
registration No. MHS-2572 itself met with an
accident. The appellant claimed himself to be a
labour in the said Dumper vehicle. The appellant
pleaded that the accident has occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Dumper
vehicle and thus claimed the compensation.
4.Alongwith the application in the present
case, five other claim petitions were filed. The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that four applications were allowed and remaining
fa378-96
(3)
two, including the present application, were
dismissed, on the ground that the claimants failed to
prove that they had suffered injuries.
5.The Award of the learned Tribunal itself
indicates that the appellant/claimant has filed on
record Injury Certificate at Exh-65 wherein it was
indicated that the appellant had received minor
injuries. In such circumstances, the learned
Tribunal could not have outrightly rejected the claim
petition of the present appellant. Considering the
fact that the appellant is a labour, who has suffered
minor injuries, according to me, an amount of Rs.
10,000/- would be a just compensation.
6.Mr. V.N. Upadhye, learned counsel appearing
for Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company, submits
that grant of interest from the date of filing of the
application would not be just. Taking into
consideration all these facts, in my view, the total
compensation of Rs. 15,000/- including the interest
would be just and reasonable one.
In the circumstances, therefore, the appeal
7.
fa378-96
(4)
is partly allowed with proportionate cost. The
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay jointly
and severally the compensation of Rs. 15,000/-
(Rupees fifteen thousand) to the appellant/petitioner
within a period of eight weeks from the date of this
order. Upon failure to pay the said amount within the
stipulated period, an interest @ 8% per annum shall
be paid by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the date
of default till the realization of the compensation.
[M.T. JOSHI, J.]
npj/fa378-96
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Tribunal could have outrightly rejected the compensation claim given the receipt of injuries as per the certificate.
What amount of compensation including interest would be just and reasonable for the minor injuries suffered by the appellant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahadu Ranga Ahire
Iliyaskhan Fattekhan Pathan
Babji Mahadeo Rawool
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
M.T. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court