Tarabai Lahu Bombale Since Dec. Thr. Lrs. 1A. Lahu Ramchandra Bomble vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Lt. Mumbai and Ors.

¶1

27-FA-121-2025 JUDGMENT.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.121 OF 2025

¶4

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2025.08.12 14:06:20 +0530

¶5

1.	Tarabai Lahu Bombale (Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs.	] ]
1a]	Lahu Ramchandra Bomble	]
	Age- 54 years, Occ- Nil,	]
	R/at: Saigaon Tal. Khed, Dis-Pune.	]
1b]	Shantabai @ Savita Tukaram Borkar Age-32 years, Occ-Household,	] ]
	R/at: Saigaon Tal. Khed, Dist-Pune.	]
1c]	Kavita Bajrang Gopale	]
	Age: 30 years, Occ-Household,	]
	R/at: Saburdi Tal.Khed, Dist-Pune.	]
1d]	Suvrna Bharat Echake	]
	Age: 28 years, Occ-Household,	]
	R/at: Bursewadi, Tal. Khed, Dist-Pune.	]
1e]	Bharati Bhalchandra Raut	]
	Age: 26 years, Occ-Household,	]
	R/at: Mohkal Tal. Khed, Dist-Pune.	]
1f]	Rani Jagannath Borhade	]
	Age: 24 years, Occ-Household,	]
	R/at: Khed, Dist: Pune.	]
1g]	Chakuli Sachin Pashankar Age: 22 years, Occu- Household,	] ]
	R/at: Saburdi, Tal.Khed, Dist- Pune.	] …	. Appellant
	Versus
1.	ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Lt. Mumbai	] ]
	ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar	]
	Marg, Near Sidhivinayak Temple Prabhadevi,	]

¶6

Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/5

¶7

27-FA-121-2025 JUDGMENT.doc

¶8

	Mumbai – 400025.	]
2.	Nikhil Laxman Bombale,	]
	Age about – Adult, Occ- Agriculturish,	]
3.	Bhagwan Laxman Bombale,	]
	Age about – Adult, Occ-Agriculturist,	]
	Both R/at – Vetale, Tal-Khed, Dist- Pune.	] …. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Yogesh Pande, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶10

Mr. Rahul Mehta i/b KMC Legal Venture, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 30^th JULY, 2025.

¶12

JUDGMENT. :

¶13

This appeal is preferred by the Appellants – Claimants against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khed, Pune (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶14

It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellants – Claimants that the Tribunal has held that at the time of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving licence and there was breach of Terms and Conditions of insurance policy. On that ground, the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from paying compensation, it is erroneous. The Tribunal should have passed pay and recover order. Learned counsel

¶15

2/5

¶16

Shantanu S. Dhudum

¶17

27-FA-121-2025 JUDGMENT.doc

¶18

further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded consortium amount to all the Claimants, it be awarded, and requested to allow the appeal.

¶19

It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 – Insurance Company that the Appellant had examined R.T.O. to prove that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving licence on the day of accident. The Tribunal has come to conclusion that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving licence. There was breach of Terms and Conditions of insurance policy, on that ground, the Tribunal has passed well-reasoned order. No interference is required in it, and requested to dismiss the appeal.

¶20

I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.

¶21

While dealing with the issue of driving licence in Para No.24 of the judgment, the Tribunal has observed that considering evidence of PW-3, employee of the R.T.O., it appears that, at the time of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving licence and there was breach of Terms and Conditions of insurance policy. On that ground, the Tribunal has

¶22

Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/5

¶23

27-FA-121-2025 JUDGMENT.doc

¶24

exonerated the insurance company from paying compensation and fixed liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. I am unable to understand the observation of the Tribunal. It is settled principle of law that if there is breach of Terms and Conditions of insurance policy The insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the Claimants and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle, hence, I pass pay and recover order.

¶25

The Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.70,000/- for consortium amount. There are 7 Claimants. As per view of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram 2018 ACJ2782 (SC) , each Claimant is entitled Rs.48,000/- for consortium amount, Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate. So, total amount comes to Rs.3,72,000/-. If already awarded Rs.70,000/- is deducted from the amount considered by this Court, it comes to Rs.3,02,000/-. The Claimants are entitled for this amount.

¶26