Dismissed

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. 1.SHRI. Ashok Shankar Pawar and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2024FA/1531/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against an order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellant challenged liability but the court found no infirmity as the appellant failed to examine the driver as a witness to disprove authorization. The court enhanced the consortium amount awarded to the claimants.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the appeal; claimed entitled to enhanced consortium amount of Rs.1,32,000/- with interest at 7.5% from November 1, 2017.

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs 1.SHRI. Ashok Shankar Pawar and Ors. — Insurance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2-FA-1531-2014-JUDGMENT.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.1531 OF 2014

¶4

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. } MROI New India Bhavan, 2^nd Floor, 34/38, } (Org. Opp. Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 023. } No.2) } ...Appellant

¶5

Digitally signed Versus NILAM by NILAMSANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date:2024.03.2218:09:07 +0530 1. Shri.Ashok Shankar Pawar } Age-35, Occ : Laboruer } 2. Anusayabai Ashok Pawar } (Org. Claimant Major, Occ : Labourer } Nos.1 and 2) Both R/at Kolyachi Wadi, Sayyed Pimpari, } Taluka & District-Nashik } 3. Shri.Kailas Baburao Lilke } (Org. Opp. Age-20, Occ : Driver, } No.1) R/o. Kolyachi Wadi, Sayyed Pimpari, } Taluka & District-Nashik } 4. Shri.Sadashiv Dagdu Suryawanshi } (Org.Opp. Age-35, Occ : Vehicle Owner, } No.2) R/o-4610, Amrudham, Room No.2, } Panchavati, Nashik-422 003. } ...Respondents ---Mrs.Urmila K. Sanil, for the Appellant. Mr.Rahul D. Motkari a/w Ms.Manasi Pawar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶6

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶7

2-FA-1531-2014-JUDGMENT.doc

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 12^th MARCH 2024

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶10

. The issue involved in this Appeal is Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶11

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company that, the driver who was not authorized to drive the vehicle entered into the offending truck and inserted a nail in the switch and drove it, due to which accident occurred. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, as the vehicle was not driven by the authorized person, but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶12

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant that, the driver of the offending vehicle was employed by the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing the judgment and order, hence, no interference is required in it. Hence requested to

¶13

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶14

2-FA-1531-2014-JUDGMENT.doc

¶15

dismiss the Appeal.

¶16

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment

¶17

and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘The Tribunal’ for short), Nashik.

¶18

While dealing with the issue of fixing liability the Tribunal has observed that the Opponent No.1 was driving the vehicle on the basis of an authority drawn from Opponent No.2. I do not find infirmity in it, as Appellant-Insurance Company has not examined Opponent No.1 as witness, to prove that he was not authorized to drive the vehicle. I do not see merit in the contention that Opponent No.1 had no authority to drive the offending vehicle. While awarding compensation the Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side. As per view of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nanu Ram¹ , each claimant is entitled for Rs.48,000/- as consortium amount, Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate. It comes to Rs.1,32,000/-.

¶19

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶20

1 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC)

¶21

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶22

2-FA-1531-2014-JUDGMENT.doc

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) The Appeal is dismissed.

¶25

(ii) The Claimant’s are entitled for enhanced

¶26

amount of Rs.1,32,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from 1^st November 2017 till realization of the amount.

¶27

(iii) The Appellant-Insurance Company shall

¶28

deposit enhanced amount along with accrued interest within six weeks after receipt of the order.

¶29

(iv) The Claimant’s are permitted to withdraw deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶30

(v) The statutory amount alongwith interest be transferred to the Tribunal. Parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rules.

¶31

(vi) The Claimant’s shall pay Deficit Court Fees on enhanced amount.

¶32

(vii) All pending Civil and Interim Applications are disposed of.

¶33

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶34

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. 1.SHRI. Ashok Shankar Pawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. 1.SHRI. Ashok Shankar Pawar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Sandhya Sachin Gurav Vs Mr. Sachin Dnyaneshwar Gurav

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Shri. Sarjerao Shankar Mandavkar and Ors.

Shivajirao Vitthal Kalange (Deseased) Thr. Lrs. Vijay Shivaji Kalange Vs Tukaram Sakharam Kalambe and Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd.through Mbro-Iii,Mumbai Third Party Hub vs Shri.Kisan Narayan Changan and Ors.

Gurudas Narayan Bhise Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Shabana Iqbal Sayed and Ors. Vs the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.