Dismissed

Janardhan Punjaram Gawli and Anr. v. Nanasaheb Ghaganrao Jadhav and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2013FA/638/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed an appeal against compensation awarded in a motor accident. The Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that an accident involving a jeep and motorcycle occurred, based on the driver's admission and the appellant's own FIR. It also approved the application of notional income for compensation.

What did the court decide?

Statutory deposit of the appellants was allowed to be withdrawn by claimants.

Janardhan Punjaram Gawli and Anr. Vs Nanasaheb… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 fa 638.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 638 OF 2012

¶4

Janardhan Punjaram Gawli and another .. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Nanasaheb Chaganrao Jadhav and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri A. R. Borulkar, Advocate for Appellants. Shri Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 05TH MARCH, 2013.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. The claim filed by the present respondents/claimants is partly allowed. Aggrieved thereby owner and driver of the offending vehicle have filed the present appeal.

¶11

Shri Borulkar, the learned counsel for appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in discarding the evidence led by the present appellants and witnesses to negative the case. It is the case of appellants that, motorcycle had skid

¶12

2 fa 638.12

¶13

and no accident had taken place with the jeep owned and driven by the appellants. Even the witnesses at Exhibit 59 and 69 have given the evidence supporting the case put forth by the appellants. The said evidence has been discarded only on the ground that there is some inconsistency in the evidence. The minor discrepancies would not affect credibility of the evidence. The learned counsel submits that, the appreciation of evidence at the hands of the Tribunal is perverse and the same requires consideration at the hands of this Court. The learned counsel further submits that compensation awarded is exorbitant. There is no proof of income earned by the deceased. The Tribunal could not have ordered such an exorbitant amount of compensation.

¶14

Shri Bajaj, the learned counsel for respondents supports the judgment and submits that, even driver of the jeep has admitted in his written statement about the factum of accident. Now the appellants cannot be allowed to resile from the said stand. Even the FIR given by the appellant No. 1 himself states about the accident of the motorcycle with the jeep owned by him. The Court has considered the notional income.

¶15

With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through

¶16

3 fa 638.12

¶17

the judgment and the deposition as provided by the learned counsel.

¶18

In the written statement the driver of the jeep has specifically admitted that the accident of the motorcycle had taken place with the jeep. Even the FIR which is lodged by present appellant No. 1 states about the accident of the motorcycle with the jeep. The oral evidence led by the appellants and their witnesses is after thought. The same has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

¶19

In view of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly concluded about the accident of jeep with the motorcycle in which the deceased lost his life.

¶20

The Tribunal in absence of proof of income has considered notional income as Rs. 3,000/- and has deducted 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses. The same is legal and proper. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier considering the age of the parents.

¶21

In the light of the above, the first appeal stands dismissed.

¶22

4 fa 638.12

¶23

The amount of statutory deposit deposited by the appellants is allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants in accordance with the award passed U/Sec. 166 of the M. V. Act. The amount is allowed to be withdrawn by the claimant No. 2 Kamalbai Nanasaheb Jadhav.

¶24

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶25

bsb/March 13

Janardhan Punjaram Gawli and Anr. v. Nanasaheb Ghaganrao Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardhan Punjaram Gawli and Anr. v. Nanasaheb Ghaganrao Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangal Namdeo Suryawanshi and Ors. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Govardhan Mohanlal Karva Vs the State Information Commissioner and Ors.

Rafiyoddin Shaikh Biram Khatik and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Janardhan Punjaram Gawli and Anr. Vs Nanasaheb Ghaganrao Jadhav and Ors.

Shreeram Developers Thr. Its Partners Vs the Dhule Municipal Corp. and Ors.

Sharda Sonyabapu Borude and Anr. Vs Sonyabapu Dashrath Borude and Ors.