Partly allowed

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pandharikant Sawant (Dec) Thr. His Lrs. and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2022FA/29/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging compensation award in a motor accident case prosecuted without leave, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal as unmaintainable. However, on the merits, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,56,000/- instead of Rs. 5,00,000/- to correct errors in the multiplier calculation and award for specific losses.

What did the court decide?

The appeal dismissed as unmaintainable; compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 5,56,000/-; Insurance Company granted four weeks to deposit the difference.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Pandharikant Sawant… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

3-FA-29-2018.DOC

¶2

Niti

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.29 OF 2018

¶5

National Insurance Co. Ltd. A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (now Companies Act, 2013) Having its registered address at 9, Wallace, Street, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

¶6

...Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pandharikant Sawant, s/o Shri Jagannath Sawant, major in age 56 years, r/o H. No. 359, Karwada, Amona, Bicholim Goa. (since deceased through his legal heirs)

¶9

1A. Poonam Pandharikant Sawant, w/o late Shri. Pandharikant Sawant, major in age 31 years,

¶10

1B. Chaitan @ Paresh Pandharikant Sawant, s/o late Shri Pandharikant Sawant, minor represented through his natural legal guardian Smt. Poonam Pandharikant Sawant.

¶11

both r/o H.No. 359, Kharwada, Amona, Bicholim Goa.

¶12

Shri Rajnish Singh, s/o Jalata Singh, major in age, r/o Kamati Chawl, Satyanager, D.P road, Sakinaka Kurla, Mumbai Maharashtra.

¶13

Page 1 of 4 7th April 2022

¶14

3-FA-29-2018.DOC

¶15

Bhambri Super Roadways Pvt. Ltd., Behind Krishna Petrol Pump, Kalyan, Mumbai, Maharashtra. …Respondents

¶16

Mr. A. Naik holding for Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Advocate for the Appellant .

¶17

Mr. Guru Shirodkar with Ms. Varsha Parab, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1(A) & 1(B).

¶18

CORAM: M. S. SONAK, J.

¶19

DATED: 7^th APRIL 2022

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶21

1. Heard Mr. A. Naik, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Guru Shirodkar along with Ms. Varsha Parab, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1(A) & 1(B).

¶22

2. Admittedly, in this case, no leave was obtained under Section 170 of the MV Act. Therefore, following the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Amravati V/s. Surekha w/o. Prakash Ghurde and Ors.1 this appeal will have to be dismissed, as not maintainable.

¶23

3. Mr. Guru Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the claimants, however, points out that there is an obvious error in taking the

¶24

1 (2020) 2 Bom.CR 465

¶25

Page 2 of 4 7th April 2022

¶26

3-FA-29-2018.DOC

¶27

multiplier as 17 when, in fact, the same should have been 18 in
terms of the law laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi & Ors.2. Hepoints out that even
the award towards consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses
is much lesser than what is provided in Pranay Sethi (supra). He
points out that, this is a case of death of 27 year old son of the
claimant/father. He points out that even the father ultimately
expired and now the matter is pursued by the wife of the original
claimant.

¶28

4. Since there are obvious errors in the computation of compensation, the multiplier is now taken as 18. Besides, towards loss of consortium an amount of 40,000/- is ₹ determined. Similarly, towards loss of estate and future expenses compensation of 15,000/- each is liable to be awarded. This ₹ means that the just compensation would work out to 5,56,000/- ₹ instead of 5,00,000/- as determined by the Tribunal. ₹

¶29

5. In the peculiar facts of this case and having regard to the circumstance that the claimant lost his 27 year old son in the road accident, though the appeal has been dismissed, the compensation is reworked to 5,56,000/- in place of 5,00,000/-. ₹ ₹ The impugned award will stand modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶30

2 (2017) 16 SSC 680

¶31

Page 3 of 4 7th April 2022

¶32

3-FA-29-2018.DOC

¶33

6. The Insurance Company has deposited the originally awarded amount. The Insurance Company is granted further four weeks time to deposit the enhanced portion together with interest. The claimants are now held entitled to withdraw these amounts, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, after six weeks provided there is no other restraint order, in the meanwhile. The claimants will have to furnish their identification papers and bank details so that the amounts can be directly deposited in their bank accounts.

¶34

7. The dismissal of the appeal of the Insurance Company will not preclude the Insurance Company from instituting any other proceedings, if maintainable in law.

¶35

8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no orders for costs.

¶36

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶37

Digitally signed by NITI K NITI K HALDANKAR HALDANKAR Date: 2022.04.08 11:03:03 +05'30'

¶38

Page 4 of 4 7th April 2022

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pandharikant Sawant (Dec) Thr. His Lrs. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pandharikant Sawant (Dec) Thr. His Lrs. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandurang Babusso Naik Dessai (Dec) and Anr., Vs Govt of Goa, Rep. through Its Chief Secretary and 48 Ors.

Jesus Sequeira., Vs Peter Furtado Alias Pedro Furtado (Dec) and 12 Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Manager., Vs Assencia Fernandes and 5 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., through Its Authorised Officer., Vs Swati Sakharam Tilve and 6 Ors.

Kishori Lawanis., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Executive Engineer, Bicholim.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Fatima Malik Shaikh and 7 Ors.