Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Shri. Mujip @ Mujeeb Nijam Sayyad and Ors.

43-FA-1183-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO.1183 OF 2024

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. } 4^th Floor, Chintamani Avenue, } Next to Virmani Industrial Estate, } Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon } East, Mumbai-400063. } ...Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2025.02.07 10:33:26 +0530

¶7

Shri.Mujip @ Mujeeb Nijam Sayyad } Father of Deceased, Age-47 Years }

¶8

Smt.Sultana Mujip @ Muheeb Sayyad } Mother of deceased, Age-37 years, } Both R/at 4A-62, Saidham Society, } MMRDA Colony, Near Durga Nagar, JVLR, } Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 }

¶9

Mr.Zinjad Laxman Sopan } Malwadi Randhe Darodi, Tal-Parner, } District-Ahemadnagar-414305 } ...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Avesh A. Ghadge i/b Mr.Akshay Kulkarni, for the Appellant. Mr.Vasant N. More, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶12

DATE : 30^th JANUARY 2025

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶14

. The issues involved in this Appeal is income of the

¶15

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶16

43-FA-1183-2024.doc

¶17

deceased is considered on higher side and at the time of the accident the driver of the vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license.

¶18

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that, at the time of accident driver of vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license. The learned counsel further submitted that, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased at @ Rs.17,000/- per month, without any evidence on record, which is on higher side. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶19

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant that, the deceased was working as helper in Kraft Box Industries and he was getting salary of Rs.17,000/- per month. The learned counsel further submitted that, no evidence is produced on record by the Appellant-Insurance Company regarding driving license. The Tribunal has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it. Hence requested to dismiss the Appeal.

¶20

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment

¶21

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶22

43-FA-1183-2024.doc

¶23

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

¶24

To prove the income of the deceased, the Claimant’s have examined Claimant No.1. He has stated that, the deceased was his son and he was working as office boy with Kraft Box Industries and getting salary of Rs.17,000/- per month. In support of PW-1, the Claimant’s have examined PW-2-Mallesh. He was the Operator in Kraft Box Industries. He has stated that, the deceased was working as helper in their company and his salary was at Rs.17,000/-. The salary Certificate is at Exhibit-29. Considering the evidence on record the Tribunal has considered monthly income of deceased at Rs.17,000/- per month. I do not find infirmity in it.

¶25

In my view PW-2 has produced Salary Certificate of deceased and as per salary certificate the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased which is proper. Though Appellant-Insurance Company has taken defence that at the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. But no evidence is produced on

¶26

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶27

43-FA-1183-2024.doc

¶28

record. Hence, I do not find infirmity in it. Considering these

¶29

facts, I pass following order.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The Appeal is dismissed.