Allowed

Bapu Dadasaheb Adkine v. Vilas Tukaram Gaikwad (Died) Lrs Rekha Vilas Gaikwad and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2014FA/1507/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for re-appreciation of evidence, directing it to clarify which vehicle was involved in the accident.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was set aside and the matter remitted for re-appreciation of evidence; statutory deposit refunded with interest.

Bapu Dadasaheb Adkine Vs Vilas Tukaram Gaikwad (Died)… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

(1) FA NO.1507/2012

¶3

904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1507 OF 2012 WITH CA/5188/2012 IN FA/1507/2012

¶4

BAPU DADASAHEB ADKINE VERSUS

¶5

VILAS TUKARAM GAIKWAD (DIED) LRS REKHA VILAS GAIKWAD AND ORS

¶6

Advocate for Appellant : Mr.Mr.Ghatol Patil Shahaji B. Mr.Dargad Sunilkumar G For R/1a & 1b

¶7

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: January 29, 2014

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

Heard.

¶10

Inspite of service, original claimant / respondent no.2 herein absent. The appellant / original respondent no.2 assails the award recorded by learned Ex Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli, in MACP No.119/2004, dated 20th Dec., 2011. Grievance of the appellant is, his vehicle No.MH-22A-1944 is of Suzuki make. It was not involved in the accident, however, FIR referred said vehicle registration number but Vilas Tukaram Gaikwad ( original respondent no.1) was prosecuted, who has, indeed, Vehicle No.MH-38-A-1944 of Hero Honda make, which was involved. Learned Counsel points, initially, the claim petition was only against said Gaikwad; later on, appellant is arrayed as respondent in the claim petition.

¶11

Having gone through the assessment of the evidence,

¶12

AGP/-

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

(2) FA NO.1507/2012

¶15

it is explicit that the learned Member has not properly appreciated the evidence, and to record an affirmative finding about involvement of the appellants vehicle who, indeed, does not reside in the locality of Hingoli which should have been taken note of. It is curious, said Gaikwad was resident of Antule Nagar wherein the claimant / injured was also a resident.

¶16

The award is set aside. The matter is remitted to the concerned Court for re-appreciation of evidence and even permitting the parties to lead additional evidence to fix liabilities, particularly which vehicle was involved. The parties to appear before learned Member on 27th Feb., 2014. Learned Member is requested to dispose of the claim petition upto 31st July, 2014.

¶17

Appeal allowed as above. No costs. R & P be sent back immediately.

¶18

Statutory deposit be refunded with accrued interest, to the appellant.

¶19

Stay petition disposed of.

¶20

AGP/-

Bapu Dadasaheb Adkine v. Vilas Tukaram Gaikwad (Died) Lrs Rekha Vilas Gaikwad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapu Dadasaheb Adkine v. Vilas Tukaram Gaikwad (Died) Lrs Rekha Vilas Gaikwad 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 Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. Vs Nagorao Bapusaheb Deshmukh

The Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. Vs Prakash Manikrao Dharmadhikari Thr Lrs

Sundarabai Sahebrao Nagare Vs Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Devp. Corp. and Another

State of Maharashtra through Collector Latur Vs Namdeo Gunda Kawale

M/S New India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office at Aurangabad. Vs Chand Alloudin Shaikh

Digambar Kanoba Tekale Vs Kamal Maruti Rathod and Anr.