National Insurance Company Limited Mumbai Thr. the Divisional Manager vs Sonali Shankar Hire and Ors.

¶1

53-fa-1648-1650-2024.doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1648 of 2024

¶5

National Insurance Company Limited) (Insurer of Chevrolet Tavera No.MH-12/CY-8191, Policy No.270607311710001888 period of policy-15.3.2018 to 14.3.2019. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Add. Kavita Commercial Complex, Near Canada Corner, Nashik, Tal. & Dist, Nashik through Mumbai Regional Office, Third Party claims Department, 1^st floor, National Insurance Building, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020. …. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Sonali Shankar Hire, Age 38 years, Occupation – Housewife.

¶8

2 Durgesh Shankar Hire, Age 19 years, Occupation-Education.

¶9

3 Shraddha Shankar Hire, Age 18 years, Occupation – Education.

¶10

4 Dharma Punjaram Hire, Age 68 years, Occupation – Nil.

¶11

5 Sindhubai Dharma Hire, Age 65 years, Occupation – housewife. All R/o. House No.98, Sambhaji Wada, Shriram Nagar, Lane No.1, Malegaon, Tal. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2025.01.28 17:50:52 +0530

¶13

6 Ravindra Dinkar Chavan, Age – 50 years, Occu.Driver and Owner of vehicle, R/o.7/1, Indraprastha Housing Society, Near Durga Provision, Central Bank Colony, Pimprala, Jalgaon, Tal.Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon-425001. …. Respondents

¶14

1/5

¶15

53-fa-1648-1650-2024.doc

¶16

Shubhada S Kadam

¶17

with

¶18

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1650 of 2024

¶19

National Insurance Company Limited) (Insurer of Chevrolet Tavera No.MH-12/CY-8191, Policy No.270607311710001888 period of policy-15.3.2018 to 14.3.2019. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Add. Kavita Commercial Complex, Near Canada Corner, Nashik, Tal. & Dist, Nashik through Mumbai Regional Office, Third Party claims Department, 1^st floor, National Insurance Building, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020.

¶20

…. Appellant

¶21

Versus

¶22

1 Sunandabai Suresh Bagul Age 60 years, Occ.-Household work.

¶23

2 Manisha Shantaram Ahire, Age 41 years, Occ.-Household work.

¶24

3 Savitra Suresh Bagul, Age 37 years, Occ.-Household work, All R/o. Deviche Mandir, Sangamneshwar, Malegaon, Tal. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik.

¶25

4 Ravindra Dinkar Chavan, Age – 51 years Occ. Driver and Owner of vehicle, R/O.7/1, Indraprastha Housing Society, Near Durga Provision Central Bank Colony, Pimprala, Jalgaon, Tal. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon-425001.

¶26

…. Respondents

¶27

Ms. Sneha S. Dwivedi, Advocate for the Appellant-Insurance Company in both matters.

¶28

Ms. Anilkumar Patil along with Mr. Sachin Bhavan, Miss Zeel Jain and Mr. Digvijay A. Patil, Advocates for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5/original claimants in FA/1648/2024 and for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/original claimants in FA/1650/2024.

¶29

Mr. Pratik Sabrad along with Mr. Sarvesh Deshpande and Mr. Pratik Ingle, Advocate for Respondent No.6 in FA/1648/2024 and for Respondent No.4 in FA/1650/2024.

¶30

2/5

¶31

53-fa-1648-1650-2024.doc

¶32

Shubhada S Kadam

¶33

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶34

DATE : 13^th JANUARY, 2025.

¶35

Judgment:

¶36

Both the appeals are preferred against the judgment and order out of the same accident and on the same issues, hence, I am deciding both the appeals by this common judgment.

¶37

The issues involved in these appeals are that, at the time of accident, the deceased was not wearing helmet and there was breach of term and conditions of the insurance policy. The deceased-Vishwanath Suresh Bagul in First Appeal No.1650 of 2024 was riding the motorcycle and deceased -Shankar Dharma Hire in First Appeal No.1648 of 2024 was the pillion rider on the said motorcycle.

¶38

It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company that the offending vehicle was carrying passengers. The insurance policy was not in respect of carriage of passengers, so there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased- Vishwanath Suresh Bagul was riding the motorcycle without wearing the helmet and he hit the offending vehicle, so there was contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident but these facts are not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.

¶39

3/5

¶40

53-fa-1648-1650-2024.doc

¶41

Shubhada S Kadam

¶42

It is contention of learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in high and excessive speed. The said vehicle went on the other side of the divider and gave dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. The accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel further submitted that it is not proved before the Tribunal that deceased was not wearing helmet, hence, requested to dismiss the appeal.

¶43

I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nashik (for short “the Tribunal”).

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has raised the issue of breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was carrying passengers in the offending jeep and the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident but to prove these facts, no evidence is produced on record. It appears from record that the driver of the offending vehicle went on other side of the road and gave dash to the motorcycle of the deceased, so the accident was caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Considering these facts, I do not find merit in the appeal.

¶45

4/5

¶46

53-fa-1648-1650-2024.doc

¶47

Shubhada S Kadam

¶48

In view of above, I pass the following order :

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

Both appeals are dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶51

The claimants in both appeals are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶52

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

¶53

Record and proceeding be sent back to the Tribunal.

¶54

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶55

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶56

5/5

National Insurance Company Limited Mumbai Thr. the Divisional Manager v. Sonali Shankar Hire and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited Mumbai Thr. the Divisional Manager v. Sonali Shankar Hire and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vaibhav Mohandas Aher and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Bajrang B. Bhoir vs Future Generali India Ins. Co.Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.

Mohamad Irfan Rais Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

United Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sanjay Shamrao Sakunde and Anr.

Nilesh Vithoba Gadade vs the State of Maharashtra

Mrudul Parag Joshi and Ors. vs Managing Direcotr, Pmpml Pune