Partly allowed

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited through Its Officer Neeraj Kumar Jain v. Mr.Ganesh Namdev Dagade and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2024FA/489/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court decided a First Appeal by an insurance company regarding a Motor Accident Claims case. The court rejected the argument that additional evidence proving a license lapse and liquor consumption was necessary. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal only to the extent of correcting the Consortium and Funeral expenses based on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Appellant permitted to withdraw Rs. 41,000/- plus interest; Respondent permitted to withdraw balance amount plus interest.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

36-FA-489-2021.doc

¶2

Shubham Talle

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2021

¶5

TALLE

¶6

SHUBHAMDigitally signed by ASHOKRAOTALLE TALLESHUBHAM SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Digitally signed byASHOKRAO Date: TALLE SHUBHAM2024.02.22 ASHOKRAO18:33:19+0530 Date: 2024.02.21 18:43:57 +0530

¶7

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through ….Appellant its officer Neerai Kumar Jain Plot No. c-6, NCL (Ori.Oppo.No.2) Premises, 1^st Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra(East) Mumbai – 400 051

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ganesh Namdev Dagade

¶10

Age 24 years, son of the deceased

¶11

R/o. Netaji Subhash Nagar Near Kamraj Nagar, Eastern Express Highway Ghatkopar (East) Mumbai- 400075.

¶12

Anil Tulshiram Marachande R/o 37, Old Ramabadi Ambedkar Nagar V.N. Mehta Marg, Ghatkopar (East) Mumbai 400075 Maharashtra … Respondents.

¶13

Mr. Rajesh Kanojia i/by Res Juris, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. T. J. Mendon, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.

¶14

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶15

DATE : 6^th FEBRUARY, 2024.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT. :

¶17

The issues involved in this appeal are at the time of accident the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license and the driver of the offending vehicle was under

1/4

36-FA-489-2021.doc

Shubham Talle

the influence of liquor.

¶22

It is contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that at the time of accident the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license. To prove it, investigating officer was examined but, his evidence was not considered by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel further submitted that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor, but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶23

It is contention of learned Counsel for Respondent/Claimant that to prove the defense that driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license at the time of accident, no officer from RTO office is examined no any medical certificate produced on record to show that driver of offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects and on that basis Judgment and Order is passed, no interference is required in it.

¶24

I have heard both learned Counsels, perused the Judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, (for short “the Tribunal”).

¶25

It is contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that

2/4

36-FA-489-2021.doc

Shubham Talle

at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not holding

¶30

valid and effective driving license but, to prove said fact, no witness from RTO office is examined by the Appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, I do not see merit in it.

¶31

It is contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor. To prove this fact, Investigating Officer was examined but no medical evidence or medical report is produced on record to show that the driver of offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor, hence, I do not see merit in it. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on higher side under the head of love and affection Rs. 1 lakh and for funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-. As per the view of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), each claimant is entitled for Rs. 48,000/as consortium amount and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 18,000/- for loss of estate, the total of it comes to Rs. 84,000/-, if this amounts deducts from the amount considered by the Tribunal i.e.

¶32

1,25,000/- it comes to Rs. 41,000/- this is excess amount.

¶33

In view of above, I pass following Order.

3/4

36-FA-489-2021.doc

Shubham Talle

ORDER

a) The Appeal is partly allowed.

¶39

b) The Appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw Rs.41,000/- along with proportionate interest thereon out of the deposited amount.

¶40

c) The Respondent-Claimant is permitted to withdraw balance amount with proportionate interest thereon.

¶41

d) The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal alongwith accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rule.

¶42

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed off.

¶43

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶44

4/4

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited through Its Officer Neeraj Kumar Jain v. Mr.Ganesh Namdev Dagade and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited through Its Officer Neeraj Kumar Jain v. Mr.Ganesh Namdev Dagade and Anr.

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

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Pournima Ratan Rajput and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller Vs Navnath Balu Pujari

Maharashtra State Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller Pune Vs Bajirao Raghunath Devkar and Ors.

Shri. Suresh Ambadas Pawar Vs Shri. Laxman Narayan Patole and Anr.

Shri. Suresh Ambadas Pawar Vs Shri. Laxman Narayan Patole and Anr.

The Regional Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Renuka Ravindra Khiste-Guardian-Asawari R. Khiste and Othrs