Dismissed

1. Shrikant Annappa Shinde and Anr. v. 1. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2024FA/344/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award challenged the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's age as 26 years and sought to shift compensation liability to the bank holding the hypothecation of the uninsured motorcycle. The court found no infirmity in the age finding and held the owner, not the bank, liable for insurance; the appeal was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

1. Shrikant Annappa Shinde and Anr. Vs 1. Khiraling… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1-FA-344-2011-JUDG.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2011

¶4

Shrikant Annappa Shinde } 2. Bablu Shrikant Shinde } Both R/at 13/316, Datar Mala, Ichalkaranji, } Tal. Hatkanangale, District-Kolhapur } ...Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAMSANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date:2024.01.16 15:01:22 +0530

¶7

Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty } R/at Kadapure Tal, Ward No.10/1142, } Datar Mala, Ichalkaranji, Taluka} Hatkanagale, District-Kolhapur. } 2. Sou.Suglabai Khiraling Shingshetty } R/at As Above } 3. Santosh Khiraling Shingshetty } R/at As Above } 4. Savitri Khiraling Shingshetty } R/at As Above } ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Prashant Kulkarni, for the Appellant. Mr.A.M. Kulkarni, for Respondent No.1 to 4.

¶9

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶10

DATE : 8^th JANUARY 2024

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶12

. The issues involved in this Appeal are, age of the deceased was not proved and the vehicle was hypothecated with

¶13

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶14

1-FA-344-2011-JUDG.doc

¶15

the bank, but bank did not insure it.

¶16

It is contention of the learned counsel for the

¶17

Appellant that, age of the deceased was not proved before the Tribunal and the offending motorcycle was hypothecated with bank, so it was the duty of the bank to take the insurance of the said vehicle, but it was not taken, hence, the Appellant is not liable to pay compensation, but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶18

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that, the Tribunal has considered all the aspect while passing the order. No interference is required in it.

¶19

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment

¶20

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

¶21

While dealing with the issue of age of deceased the Tribunal in paragraph No.16 has observed that, at the time of the accident deceased was 20 years old, but not evidence produced on record. Considering the evidence on record the Tribunal has considered age of deceased as 26 years. I do not find infirmity in

¶22

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶23

1-FA-344-2011-JUDG.doc

¶24

it.

¶25

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that, at the time of accident the offending motorcycle was hypothecated with Nutan Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., hence, it was obligation on the said bank to take the Insurance Policy. In my view, though the offending vehicle was hypothecated with the bank, no agreement was produced on record to show that, if there was Terms and Conditions about taking insurance policy of offending vehicle by the Nutan Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Mere vehicle was hypotecated to the bank, cannot be a ground to shift liability of paying compensation on the said bank. It was obligatory on the owner of vehicle to take insurance policy of the vehicle. The accident caused due to negligence of the Appellant. Hence bank cannot be hold liable to pay the compensation mere hypothecation with it.

¶26

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i) Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶29

(ii) The Claimant’s are permitted to withdraw

¶30

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶31

1-FA-344-2011-JUDG.doc

¶32

amount deposited by the Respondents along with accrued interest thereon.

¶33

(iii) The statutory amount along with accrued interest be transferred to the Tribunal. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rules.

¶34

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

¶35

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶36

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

1. Shrikant Annappa Shinde and Anr. v. 1. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

1. Shrikant Annappa Shinde and Anr. v. 1. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Praveen Praveen Bahurothu Vs Mr Venkat Suryapraveen Bahurothu

Archana Samir Birari Vs Samir Babulal Birari

Pramod Ramesh Tambat Vs United India Insurance Co. Limited, Pune and Ors.

Sapna Vinod Vanmore Vs Mr. Vinod Vasantrao Vanmore

Ramesh Mahadu Mahajan Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri. Kamalakar Laxman Vaykul (Since Deceased His Name Is Deleted) and Ors.