Dismissed

The New Inida Insurance Company Limited v. Mr.Mohan Rajaram Raut and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Apr 2024FA/288/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order awarding compensation. Holder of comprehensive insurance challenged contributory negligence finding. Court found no infirmity in order, held compensation awarded below Reg. Psi. 1, 00, 000/- and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; claimant permitted to withdraw deposited amount with interest.

The New Inida Insurance Company Limited Vs Mr.Mohan Rajaram Raut and Ors. — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

344-FA-288-2019.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2024.05.07 10:55:51 +0530

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2019

¶7

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.,	)
Bhigwan Chowk, Tal. Baramati,	)
Dist. Pune.	)	….Appellant
		(Orig. Insurer)
Versus
1. Mohan Rajaram Raut	)
Age: 64 year, Occ: Agriculturist,	)
R/at. Indapur, Ambikanagar,	)
Tal. Indapur, Dist. Pune.	)
2. Hanumant Ankush Jadhav	)
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculturist.	)
R/at. Post Kalthan No.1, Indapur	)
Tal. Indapur, Dist. Pune.	)
3. TATA A.I.G.	)
General Insurance Company Ltd.	)
The Orien, 3^rdFloor,	)
Koregaon Park Road, Pune.	)
4. Haridas Ramchandra Bhosale	)
Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculturist,	)
R/a. Post Tarangwadi,	)
Tal. Indapur, Dist. Pune.	)

¶8

1/4

¶9

Shantanu Dhudum		344-FA-288-2019.doc
5. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.	)
Bhigwan Chowk, Tal. Baramati,	)
District – Pune.	)	….Respondents
		(Respondent Nos.1)
		= Orig. Applicants &
		Respondent Nos.2 to
		5= Opp. Party)

¶10

Mr. Bhalchandra Jadhav i/b Mr. Milind More, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶11

Mr. Ganesh Pawar i/b Mr. Bhalchandra S. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶13

DATE : 30^th APRIL, 2024.

¶14

Oral Judgment :

¶15

The issue involved in this appeal is contributory negligence of the deceased.

¶16

It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of tractor but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal and has directed Appellant/Insurance Company to pay Rs.90,000/-, which is erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants submitted

2/4

344-FA-288-2019.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing the judgment and order, no interference is required in it.

¶22

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramati (for short “the Tribunal).

¶23

It is Claimants’ case that on 7^th January, 2012 the Claimant was proceeding towards Indapur by Indica Car. At about 9:30 p.m. When he reached at Village Kalwadi, at that time, one tractor attached with two trollies were proceeding ahead of the car of the Claimant, both the trollies were loaded with sugarcane. Indicator, parking lights, reflector were not attached to both the trollies. Due to bright light of the coming motor vehicle, the Claimant could not see trollies ahead of him and he dashed one of the trolley from back side. Due to dash, he sustained multiple injuries. While awarding the compensation the Tribunal has considered that the car in which the Claimant was travelling was insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company. It was comprehensive policy. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- to the Claimant and has directed the owner of tractor to pay Rs.90,000/- out of it, and, Rs.90,000/- to the Appellant/Insurance Company. I do not find infirmity in it. Moreover, the compensation

3/4

344-FA-288-2019.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

amount is awarded below Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶28

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. Appeal is dismissed.

¶31

ii. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the deposited

¶32

amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶33

iii. The statutory amount be transmitted to the tribunal

¶34

along with accrued interest thereon. The partis are

¶35

at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rule.

¶36

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶37

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶38

4/4

The New Inida Insurance Company Limited v. Mr.Mohan Rajaram Raut and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New Inida Insurance Company Limited v. Mr.Mohan Rajaram Raut 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

Arjun Shrirang Nawadkar Vs Satish Tukaram Pisal Anr. Anr.

Prachi Pramod Sasanekar Vs Pramod Narayan Sasawnekar

Krutika Durgesh Sonawane Vs Durgesh Prakash Sonawane

Bhimsha Kallappa Chougule (Deceased) Thr. L.R.S. 1A) Ramchandra Bhimsha Chougule and Ors. vs the State of Mah.,(the Notice of This L.A.Q. Refe. Be Served Upon the Dist.Gov. P. Solapur and Ors.

Pratibha Laxman Patil and Anr. Vs Jarnailsing Shingarasingh and Anr.

M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohan Bapuso Kshirsagar and Anr.