Allowed

Milind Shrikrishna Vaidya v. Suhas Ramchandra Vaidya and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Feb 2024FA/76/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a First Appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, the Bombay High Court held that interest on compensation is payable from the date of filing the claim petition. The court also set aside the Tribunal's finding of 50% contributory negligence against the pillion rider, directing the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The insurance company must deposit Rs. 1,66,500 with 7.5% per annum interest from the date of filing the claim petition.

Milind Shrikrishna Vaidya Vs Suhas Ramchandra Vaidya and Anr. — Insurance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

901-FA-76-2004.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 76 OF 2004

¶6

Dr. Milind Shrikrishna Vaidya)
Age: 29 years, Occu: Medical Practitioner,)
R/o. C/o. Shri. B. K. Marathe,)
7 & 8 Natwar Villa, Near Ambaji Temple,)
Tal. : Palghar, Dist: Thane.) ….Appellant
 Versus

¶7

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2024.02.22 13:40:02 +0530

¶8

1. Shri. Suhas Ramchandra Vidya)
 Age: Adult, Occu: Business,)
 Vithal Saiyana Shiva Dutta Mandir,)
 Manpada, Agra Old, Thane.)
2. New India Assurance Company Ltd.)
 New India Bhavan, Bombay Samachar Marg,)
 Fort, Bombay 0 400 023.) ….Respondent

¶9

Mr. Sameer Kumbhakoni for the Appellant.
Ms. Poonam Mittal for the Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶11

DATE : 8th FEBRUARY, 2024.

¶12

Oral Judgment. :

¶13

1.By this appeal, Appellant/Claimant is seeking enhancement
of compensation.

¶14

1/5

¶15

901-FA-76-2004.doc

¶16

Shantanu Dhudum

¶17

2.It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that
while awarding the compensation, the tribunal has awarded interest
on compensation from date of judgment i.e. from 3rd March, 1998.
The claim petition was filed on 1st June, 1993, the interest should
have been awarded from the filing of claim petition. Learned counsel
further submitted that the tribunal has considered contributory
negligence of 50% of the rider of the motorcycle on which the
Appellant was riding and 50% on the driver of unknown vehicle who
dashed the motorcycle, due to accidental injuries Appellant has
suffered permanent physical disability. Hence, requested to allow the
Appeal.

¶18

3.It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2/Insurance Company that after filing the claim petition. The
Appellant did not take steps due to which the claim petition was
prolonged. Hence, the tribunal has not awarded the interest on
compensation amount from the date of filing of claim petition, which
is proper. Learned counsel further submitted that the motorcycle of
deceased was dashed by unknown vehicle hence, the 50%
contributory negligence of Appellant and 50% of unknown vehicle

¶19

2/5

¶20

901-FA-76-2004.doc

¶21

Shantanu Dhudum

¶22

considered by the tribunal is proper. No interference is required in it.

¶23

4.I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and

¶24

order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palghar (for
short “the Tribunal”).

¶25

5.While awarding interest, the tribunal has observed that
after filing the claim petition. It was prolonged due to not taking steps
by the Appellant. Hence, tribunal has awarded the interest from the
date of judgment i.e. year 1998, whereas the claim petition was filed
in year 1993. In my view, it is settled principle of law that claimant is
entitled for interest on compensation amount from the date of filing
claim petition. Hence, Appellant is entitled for interest on
compensation amount from the date of filing claim petition.

¶26

6.In respect of the issue to contributory negligence. It is
claimant’s case that he was pillion rider on the motorcycle, when
unknown vehicle dashed to his motorcycle and ran away. While
dealing with this issue the tribunal has held 50% contributory
negligence of the Appellant and 50% contributory negligence of the

¶27

3/5

¶28

901-FA-76-2004.doc

¶29

Shantanu Dhudum

¶30

unknown vehicle. I am unable to understand the finding of the
tribunal. As, it is claimant’s case that the deceased was riding the
motorcycle in moderate speed and he was observing the traffic rules
and the unknown vehicle came from opposite direction and dashed to
the motorcycle of the deceased on which Appellant was pillion rider,

¶31

when the Appellant was pillion rider issue of his contributory
negligence would not arise. Moreover, as per the terms and conditions
of insurance policy premium for pillion rider was paid. The tribunal
has deducted amount of Rs.1,66,500/- from the total compensation
amount for which Appellant is entitled for 50% contributory
negligence. I am setting aside the observations of the tribunal
regarding 50% deduction of the amount.

¶32

7. In view of above, I pass following order.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. The Appeal is allowed.

¶35

ii. The Claimant/Appellant is entitled for amount of Rs.

¶36

1,66,500/- @ of interest 7.5% per annum from the

¶37

date of filing claim petition till realization of

¶38

amount.

¶39

4/5

¶40

901-FA-76-2004.doc

¶41

Shantanu Dhudum

¶42

iii. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall

¶43

deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued

¶44

interest thereon, within six weeks after receipt of

¶45

the order.

¶46

iv. The Claimant is permitted to withdraw the
deposited amount along with accrued interest
thereon.

¶47

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 undertakes to file Vakalatnama.

¶48

9. All pending interim applications are disposed off.

¶49

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶50

5/5

Milind Shrikrishna Vaidya v. Suhas Ramchandra Vaidya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milind Shrikrishna Vaidya v. Suhas Ramchandra Vaidya and Anr.

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

Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Pune Vs Sushila Kisan Damase and Ors.

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

Sou. Rani Jayant Bhangire Vs Shri. Dhananjay Chandrasen Deshmukh and Othrs

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pune Vs Ranjana Tukaram Konapure and Ors.

Smt. Tasneem D/O Akhtar Bhopalwala Vs Mr. Abhijeet S/O Dayandeo Thorat and Ors.

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune Vs Smt. Suverna Chimaji Langhi and Ors.