Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai v. Kum. Jaibunnisa Shaikh(Minor)Thr.Mother and Next Friend Rahmat Bano Hakim Shaikh and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2024FA/819/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed the insurer's first appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order. The court held there was merit in the Tribunal's finding of the driver's negligence and rejected the insurer's claim of the minor's contributory negligence, as the driver failed to testify.

What did the court decide?

The first appeal was dismissed. The claimant was permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904-FA-819-2022.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 819 OF 2022

¶6

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2024.04.17 10:18:14 +0530

¶7

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. ) 570, Naigaon Cross Road, Next to Royal Industrial ) Estate, Wadala (W), Mumbai – 400031 )

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

Versus 1 Kum. Jaibunnisa Shaikh ) Age – 5 Years, Minor Through Mother and next ) friend Rahmat Bano Hakim Shaikh ) R/o. Room No. 603, C/11, MHADA Bldg., New ) Police Chowki, Shivaji Nagar, Govandi, Mumbai ) ... Original Claimant 2 Ranjana Dadabhau Pokharkar ) 1075, 1^st Floor, Birla Complex, Kalamboli, ) Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad, Panvel -410206 ) (Owner of Trailer No. MH-06-AC-9585) ) … Respondents

¶10

Ms. Shalini Shankar, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶11

Mr. Mujtaba Shaikh a/w. Ms. Meenaz Mozawala i/b. Rajendra Rathod, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 20^th MARCH, 2024.

¶13

Oral Judgment :

¶14

The issue involved in this Appeal is accident occurred due

¶15

to negligence of the Claimant and compensation is awarded on higher

side.

1/4

904-FA-819-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

It is contention of learned counsel for the

¶21

Appellant/Insurance Company that the Claimant was walking along the road negligently. She did not follow the traffic rules and came in front of motor trailer, due to which, accident occurred. The Claimant is responsible for the accident but Tribunal has not considered this fact and has awarded compensation on higher side. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶22

It is contention learned counsel for the Respondent/Claimant that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of offending vehicle as he gave dash to the Claimant, she was 4 years old at the time of accident. Due to said dash, the Claimant had sustained injuries and she has suffered 40% permanent partial disability. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing judgment and order and no interference is required in it.

¶23

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

¶24

It is claimant’s case that on 21^st July, 2014 at about 4:00 p.m. The minor Claimant was walking on Ghatkopar - Mankhurd Link Road. When she reached in front of Municipal High School, near

2/4

904-FA-819-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

service road Govandi, one motor trailer bearing registration No.MH06-AC-9585 came in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to minor Claimant. Due to heavy dash, the minor Claimant fell down on the road and suffered injuries to various parts of the body. The offence was registered against the driver of offending vehicle. To prove the negligence of the driver of offending vehicle, the Claimant has examined herself through next friend at Exhibit-17. She has stated that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of offending trailer. To corroborate her case, the Claimant has placed on record F.I.R. at Exhibit-23, the statement of next friend recorded by the police at Exhibit-24 and spot panchanama at Exhibit25. The Respondents have not examined any witness in support of their defense.

¶29

While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has observed that offence was registered against the driver of offending vehicle. The police papers produced on record shows that accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of offending vehicle. I do not find infirmity in it. In my view, the driver of offending vehicle gave dash to the Claimant, when she was walking on the road. Moreover, to prove the negligence of the Claimant, the driver of offending

3/4

904-FA-819-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

vehicle did not step into witness box. Hence, I do not see merit in the contention that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the Claimant or contributory negligence of the Claimant. The Claimant has suffered 40% permanent partial disability due to accidental injuries. At the time of accident, she was 4 years old. Due to disability, she has to suffer for her whole life. The Tribunal has considered all this aspects and on that basis the compensation is awarded, which is proper.

¶34

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Appeal is dismissed.

¶37

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

¶38

iii. The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rule.

¶39

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶40

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶41

4/4

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai v. Kum. Jaibunnisa Shaikh(Minor)Thr.Mother and Next Friend Rahmat Bano Hakim Shaikh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai v. Kum. Jaibunnisa Shaikh(Minor)Thr.Mother and Next Friend Rahmat Bano Hakim Shaikh 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

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited through Its Manager Legal Mr.Ashwin Kumar Gawai Vs Mr.Narayan Dadu Temgude and Anr.

Avinash Dagdu Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Karnataka State Road Corporation Vs Gitanjali Himadri Chatterjee and Othrs

Smt. Kevalbai Maruti Mane and Ors. vs Shri. Sadashiv Dagdu Shinde (Owner of Tractor) and Anr.

Rereliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mr. Avinash Arun Jadhav

Smt.Anuja Anand Patil and Ors. Vs Mr.Shankar Balcharan Yadav and Ors.