Dismissed

Ravindra Ramkisan Lodhi v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Authorized Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2019FA/1800/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two first appeals relating to a motor accident claim for death. The Insurance Company challenged liability, but previous rulings covered those points. The Court held the Tribunal's quantum award, based on statutory multiplier and deceased's income, was proper and required no interference.

What did the court decide?

Both First Appeals Nos. 1800 and 1801 of 2019 were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ravindra Ramkisan Lodhi Vs the New India Assurance Co… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

with F.A. No. 01801 of 2019

¶2

(Order) (1) F.A. No. 01800 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

First Appeal No. 01800 of 2019

¶5

District : Jalgaon

¶6

Ravindra Ramkisan Lodhi,
Age : 32 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Shindad,
Taluka Pachora,
Dist. Jalgaon... Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having its Divisional Office at Adalat Road, Aurangabad, Through its authorized officer.

¶9

2.Balu Daulat Patil,
Age : 30 years,
Occupation : Driver,
R/o. Shindad,
Taluka Pachora,
Dist. Jalgaon.
3.Sahebrao Daulat Patil,
Age : 35 years,
Occupation : Tractor Owner,
R/o. Shindad,
Taluka Pachora,
Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondents.

¶10

...........

¶11

Mr. Harshal P. Randhir, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. A.B. Kadethankar, Advocate, for respondent no.01.

¶12

Respondents no.02 and 03 served.

¶13

...........

¶14

with F.A. No. 01801 of 2019

¶15

(Order) (2) F.A. No. 01800 of 2019

¶16

With

¶17

First Appeal No. 01801 of 2019

¶18

District : Jalgaon

¶19

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
A company registered under
the Companies Act and a subsidiary
of the General Insurance Co. of
India Ltd.,.. Appellant
having one of its Divisional Office (Original
at Adalat Road, Aurangabad, respondent
Through its authorized signatory. no.03)

¶20

versus

¶21

1.Ravindra Ramkisan Lodhi,
Age : 32 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,.. Respondents
R/o. Shindad Tk., (No.01 -
Taluka Pachora, Original
Dist. Jalgaon. claimant.
2.Balu Daulat Patil, No.02 -
Age : 30 years, Original
Occupation : Driver, respondent
R/o. as above. no.01
 &
3.Sahebrao Daulat Patil, No.03 -
Age : 35 years, Original
Occupation : Tractor owner respondent
 & Agriculture, no.02)
R/o. as above.

¶22

...........

¶23

Mr. Ajit B. Kadethankar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Harshal P. Randhir, Advocate, for respondent no.01.

¶24

Mr. Vijay Y. Patil, Advocate, for respondents no.02 and 03.

¶25

(Order) (3) F.A. No. 01800 of 2019 with F.A. No. 01801 of 2019

¶26

...........

¶27

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

¶28

DATE : 09TH SEPTEMBER 2019

¶29

ORDER :

¶30

01.Both these appeals are arising out of same
judgment and award passed by the learned Member of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon, in
M.A.C.P. No. 0297 of 1998, dated 21-09-2017, whereby
the respondents no.01 to 03 therein were jointly and
severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.
2,65,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 together with interest at the rate of 6 %
per annum. The original claimant has filed First
Appeal No. 1800 of 2019 for enhancement; whereas the
original respondent no.03 - Insurance Company has
filed First Appeal No. 1801 of 2019 challenging the
liability as well as the entitlement of the claimant
to receive the compensation.

¶31

02.The facts giving rise to the present appeal
are that the claimant had come with a case that
deceased Shobhabai was his wife and she was
travelling in a trailer bearing registration no. MH-
19/J-2310 to the tractor bearing no. MH-19/C-2504.
She expired due to the accidental injuries suffered
due to the negligence in driving on the part of the
tractor driver i.e. respondent no.01. The said
tractor and trolley was owned by respondent no.02 and

¶32

(Order) (4) F.A. No. 01800 of 2019 with F.A. No. 01801 of 2019

¶33

it was insured with respondent no.03 on the relevant date. [Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the Tribunal.]

¶34

03.The petition was resisted by the respondents
by filing written statement, especially by the
Insurance Company. The statutory defence was taken
on the ground that a passenger is not allowed to
travel in a tractor, that too, which was used for
agriculture purpose. The deceased was a gratuitous
passenger whose risk was not covered under the terms
of the policy.

¶35

04.Heard learned Advocate Mr. H.P. Randhir
appearing for the appellant in F.A. No.1800 of 2019
as well as respondent no.01 in F.A. No.1801 of 2019.
Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.B. Kadethankar appearing
for the appellant in F.A. No.1801 of 2019 as well as
respondent no.01 in F.A. No.1800 of 2019. So also,
heard learned Advocate Mr. V.Y. Patil appearing for
respondents no.02 and 03 in F.A. No. 1801 of 2019.

¶36

05.It will not be out of place to mention here,
that there was earlier round of decisions in the said
matter. Initially, said petition was dismissed by
the concerned Tribunal on the ground that the
claimant has failed to prove that he is the legal
representative of deceased Shobhabai. The matter was
carried to this Court by filing First Appeal No. 621

¶37

(Order) (5) F.A. No. 01800 of 2019 with F.A. No. 01801 of 2019

¶38

of 2002 which was decided by this Court on 06th June 2017. The other points were raised in respect of negligence as well as entitlement of the claimant to receive the compensation. It was observed firstly that "It is nobody's case that deceased Shobhabai was not the wife of the present appellant. Even if it is accepted that the appellant contacted second marriage, in absence of any evidence to the effect that the appellant obtained divorce from deceased Shobhabai, it cannot be held that there was no relationship between deceased Shobhabai and the appellant." Thus, it was held that the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation. Thereafter, the point in respect of breach of terms of policy was addressed to and it was held that this Court is unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the Insurance Company. Under such circumstance, the matter was only remitted for deciding the quantum.

¶39

06.Thus, it is to be noted that all the points
which were raised by the Insurance Company have
already been dealt with. Under such circumstance,
straightway First Appeal No. 1801 of 2019 filed by
the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed. The
only question is in respect of quantum. After
considering the evidence on record, the learned
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,65,000/-.
However, the claimant says that it is not adequate.
Perusal of the evidence would show that deceased
Shobhabai was getting Rs.60 to Rs.70/- per day by
doing labour work. Her monthly income was taken at

¶40

(Order) (6) F.A. No. 01800 of 2019 with F.A. No. 01801 of 2019

¶41

the rate of Rs.15,000/- per annum and definitely
since the accident had taken place in the year 1998.
So also, it may not be possible for a labour to get
work every day. The notional income that was adopted
in that period was Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Further,
taking into consideration age of the deceased as 29,
multiplier of 17 has been rightly used. So also, it
was definitely considered by the Tribunal that since
accident had occurred in the year 1998, the other
non-pecuniary damages have been properly awarded.
There is no glaring mistake in arriving at the
quantum requiring any interference by this Court.

¶42

07.In the light of above, both the first
appeals are hereby dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.

¶43

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi )
 JUDGE

¶44

...........

¶45

puranik / FA1800.19etc

Ravindra Ramkisan Lodhi v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Authorized Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Ramkisan Lodhi v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Authorized Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chief Engineer (Construction) Central Railway Vs Bhaguram Rangrao Patil and Another

Priyanka Sandeep Jadhav and Ors. Vs the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, Thr Its Authorized Official, Aurangabad and Anr.

The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Osmanabad Vs Pradeep Kisanrao Ghute and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Authorized Signatory, Aurangabad Vs Ravindra Ramkisan Lodhi and Ors.

Baburao Bansi Wayndeshkar and Anr. Vs Bhagwat Narayan Kotambe and Ors.

Baburao Bansi Wayndeshkar and Anr. Vs Bhagwat Narayan Kotambe and Ors.