Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Hunkar Sakharam Mohite and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2023FA/85/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the appellant Insurance Company challenged the income assessment. The single judge found the Tribunal's finding of Rs.23,000 per month evidence-based and dismissed the appeal, allowing respondents to withdraw deposits. The case involved civil procedure in accident compensation matters.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; statutory amount transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Hunkar Sakharam… — Insurance | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

38_fa_85_2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.85 OF 2021

¶4

Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited,
Thane Division Office,
Kalptaru Prime, 1st Floor,
Unit No.D-3, Road No.16,
Ambika Nagar, Wagle Industrial
Estate, Thane (West), District-
Thane

¶5

...Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Hunkar Sakharam Mohite

¶8

2. Pavitra Hunkar Mohite
(CA stands abated as against
R.No.2 vide order dated
11/04/2022)

¶9

3. Rajashree Hunkar Mohite
age: 40 years, Occ; Housewife,
All residing at Annabhau Sathe
Nagar, Maruti Nagar, Road No.5,
Savarpada, Near Gurkha Chawl,
Borivali (East), Mumbai-400 066.

¶10

4. Vijay Mohite
C-20-1-3, Section 16, Nerul, Navi
Mumbai Nerul Node-II, Thane.
(FA stands dismissed as against
Respondent No.4 vide order
dated 15/09/2022)

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Mr. Pandit Kasar for the Appellant.
Ms Rina Kundu for the Respondents.

¶13

Digitally signed by MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2023.12.14 11:05:04 +0530

Megha

1/4

38_fa_85_2021.doc

 CORAM: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
 DATE : 11th DECEMBER, 2023.

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶19

1.Theissue involved in this appeal is, income of the
deceased is considered on higher side.

¶20

2.It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant-
Insurance Company that the Tribunal has considered income of the
deceased at Rs.23,000/- per month, without any evidence on record,
which is on higher side and on that basis compensation is awarded,
which is not proper. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.

¶21

3.It is the contention of learned counsel for the
Respondents-Claimants that the deceased was working with M/s.
Tirupati Enterprises at Vileparle, Mumbai and he was getting salary
of Rs.23,000/- per month. To prove income of the deceased the
Claimants have examined employee of the Tirupati Enterprises, who
has stated that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.23,000/- per
month. The salary considered by the Tribunal is proper and no
interference is required in it.

Megha

2/4

38_fa_85_2021.doc

4.I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the
judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Thane (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶26

5.To prove the income of the deceased, Respondent No.1
examined himself. He has stated that the deceased was his son and
he was getting Rs.23,000/- per month. To support his evidence the
Claimants have examined Dattaram Tanu Tambe, employee of M/s.
Tirupati Enterprises at Exhibit-52. He has stated that the deceased
was working in their enterprises since last 10 years as a back office
employee and his salary was Rs..23,000/- per month. The salary
slips were filed on record. Considering the evidence on record the
Tribunal has considered Rs.23,000/- as income of the deceased. I do

¶27

not find any infirmity in it. Moreover, the Tribunal has not awarded
consortium amount. Considering these facts, I pass following order:-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶30

(ii) The Respondents -Claimants are permitted to

Megha

3/4

38_fa_85_2021.doc

withdraw deposited amount alongwith

¶35

interest accrued thereon.

¶36

iii. The statutory amount be transmitted to the

¶37

tribunal along with accrued interest thereon.

¶38

The parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as
per Rule.

¶39

6. Pending interim/civil application (s), if any, stand (s)

¶40

disposed of.

¶41

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶42

Megha

¶43

4/4

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Hunkar Sakharam Mohite and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Hunkar Sakharam Mohite 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 New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Thr.Mumbai Legal Hub Vs Mr.Ramesh Shankarlal Bhanushali and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Smt Shobha Krishnat Shinge and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Smt Shobha Krishnat Shinge and Ors.

Dinkar Rajaram Patil Vs Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mrs. Chayya Gangadhar Bhosale and Ors. Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Manager Mr. Amit Ashwini Sharma

Riya Kailash Udasi and Ors. Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Kolhapur