Dismissed

Gurudas Narayan Bhise v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2024FA/87/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the dismissal of a claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had rejected the claim on the ground that the claimant, a minor, was riding a motorcycle without a valid driving license. The High Court found no infirmity in this decision and disposed of pending applications.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. All pending Civil and Interim Applications are disposed of.

Gurudas Narayan Bhise Vs the Oriental Insurance Co… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

45-FA-87-2010-JUDGMENT.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.87 OF 2010

¶4

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAMSANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date:2024.03.22 18:09:06 +0530

¶5

Gurudas Narayan Bhise } Age-20 years, Occ : Education } (Org. R/at Malharpeth, Taluka-Patan, } Claimant) District-Satara } ...Appellant Versus 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. } Branch Office at Powai Naka, Satara } 2. Imtiyaj I Chougule } Age-44 years, Occ: Tempo Owner } R/o. Poonam Plaza, Plot No.8, Near Hotel } (Org. Green Park, Chiplun, Taluka- Chiplun, } Opponents) District-Ratanagiri. } ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Sharad Bhosle i/b Mr.Dilip Bodake, for the Appellant. Ms.Poonam Mital, for Respondent Nos.1.

¶7

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶8

DATE : 12^th MARCH 2024

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶10

. The Appeal is preferred by the Appellant-Claimant against dismissal of the Claim Petition.

¶11

It is contention of the learned counsel for the

¶12

Appellant-Claimant that at the time of the accident, Claimant was

¶13

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3

¶14

45-FA-87-2010-JUDGMENT.doc

¶15

riding on the motorcycle and his motorcycle was dashed by the offending tempo. The offence was registered against the driver of the pickup tempo. Due to accidental injuries, the Claimant has suffered 41% partial disability, but these facts are not considered by the Tribunal and has dismissed the Claim Petition, which is

¶16

erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶17

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company that, at the time of the accident the Claimant was 17 years old. The Claimant was minor and he was not holding effective and valid driving license. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects while dismissing the Claim Petition. Hence, requested to dismiss the Appeal.

¶18

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘The Tribunal’ for short), Satara.

¶19

While dismissing the Claim Petition, the Tribunal has observed that at the time of the accident the Claimant was below 18 years of the age and as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, he was not competent to drive the motorcycle more

¶20

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3

¶21

45-FA-87-2010-JUDGMENT.doc

¶22

than 50 C.C., but bus offending vehicle was 80 C.C. The Claimant was not holding effective and valid driving licenses at the time of the accident and on that ground the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition. I do not find infirmity in it as, at the time of the accident, the Claimant was minor. He was riding the motorcycle without having valid and effective driving license.

¶23

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i) The Appeal is dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶28

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 3

Gurudas Narayan Bhise v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudas Narayan Bhise v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 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

Mrs. Sandhya Sachin Gurav Vs Mr. Sachin Dnyaneshwar Gurav

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Shri. Sarjerao Shankar Mandavkar and Ors.

Shivajirao Vitthal Kalange (Deseased) Thr. Lrs. Vijay Shivaji Kalange Vs Tukaram Sakharam Kalambe and Ors.

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

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs 1.SHRI. Ashok Shankar Pawar and Ors.

Shabana Iqbal Sayed and Ors. Vs the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.