The United India Insurance Company Limited, Ratnagiri vs Smita Santosh Zagade and Ors.

¶1

S.S.Kilaje 22-26-33-34-35-55-FA-1904-24-Judgment (C).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1904 OF 2024

¶5

The United India Insurance Company Limited Deepak Hotel Building, Opp. New S.T.Stand, Chiplun, Tal. Chiplun, Dist : Ratnagiri

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 Shrawani Sandeep Zagade Age about 32 yrs., Occu. Nil R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri

¶9

2 Swanandi Sandeep Zagade Age about 3 yrs., Occu - Education R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri

¶10

3 Soham Sandeep Zagade Age about 11yrs., Occu. Education R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri

¶11

Applicant No.2 and 3 being minors through their Next friend, their mother Applicant No.1.

¶12

4 Pramila Maruti Zangade Age about 60 yrs., Occu. Nil R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri

¶13

5 The Registrar Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth At Post & Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri – 415 712 … Respondents

¶14

WITH

¶15

FIRST APPEAL NO. 461 OF 2025

¶16

The United India Insurance Company Limited Deepak Hotel Building, Opp. New S.T.Stand, Chiplun, Tal. Chiplun, Dist : Ratnagiri

… Appellant

Versus

1/9

S.S.Kilaje 22-26-33-34-35-55-FA-1904-24-Judgment (C).doc

¶21

1 Smita Santosh Zagade Age about 39 yrs., Occu. Nil R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri

¶22

2 Krutika Santosh Zagade Age about 11 yrs., Occu - Education R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri

¶23

3 Anushka Santosh Zagade Age about 8 years., Occu. Education R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri

¶24

4 Jayshri Maruti Zagade Age about 68 yrs., Occu. Nil R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri

¶25

5 The Registrar Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth At Post & Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri – 415 712 … Respondents

¶26

WITH

¶27

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1559 OF 2025

¶28

The United India Insurance Company Limited Deepak Hotel Building, Opp. New S.T.Stand, Chiplun, Tal. Chiplun, Dist : Ratnagiri … Appellant Versus 1 Srushti Sachin Zagade Age about 29 yrs., Occu. Nil R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri 2 Aaradhya Sachin Zagade Age about 5 yrs., Occu - Education R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri Applicant No.1 being minor through her next friend her mother Applicant No.1 3 Sunanda Chandrakant Zagade Age about 62 yrs., Occu. Education R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri Applicant No.2 and 3 being minors through their Next friend, their mother Applicant No.1.

¶29

2/9

¶30

S.S.Kilaje 22-26-33-34-35-55-FA-1904-24-Judgment (C).doc

¶31

4 The Registrar Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth
At Post & Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri – 415 712	… Respondents

¶32

WITH

¶33

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1560 OF 2025

¶34

	The United India Insurance Company Limited Deepak Hotel Building, Opp. New S.T.Stand, Chiplun, Tal. Chiplun, Dist : Ratnagiri … Appellant Versus
1	Shrawani Sandeep Zagade Age about 32 yrs., Occu. Nil R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri
2	Purva Sanjeev Zagade Age about 10 yrs., Occu - Education R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri
3	Shrushtri Sanjeev Zagade Age about 5 yrs., Occu. Education R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri
	Applicant No.2 and 3 being minors through their Next friend, their mother Applicant No.1.
4	Vasanti Vasant Zagade Age about 70 yrs., Occu. Nil R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri
5	The Registrar Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth At Post & Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri – 415 712 … Respondents
	WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1908 OF 2024
	The United India Insurance Company Limited Deepak Hotel Building, Opp. New S.T.Stand, Chiplun, Tal. Chiplun, Dist : Ratnagiri … Appellant Versus
1	Pramila Rajesh Sawant *3/9*

¶35

S.S.Kilaje 22-26-33-34-35-55-FA-1904-24-Judgment (C).doc

¶36

Age about 34 yrs., Occu. Nil R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri

¶37

2 Sarita Sakharam Sawant Age about 59 yrs., Occu - Nil R/o. Gimhavane, Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri

¶38

3 The Registrar Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth At Post & Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri – 415 712 … Respondents

¶39

Mr. Rahul Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Shreyash Sudhir Butala, Advocate for Respondents/claimants.

¶40

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATED : 4^th AUGUST, 2025.

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶42

All these appeals are preferred against the judgments and orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khed, District Ratnagiri (for short “the Tribunal”).

¶43

Both the learned counsel submitted that all these appeals be decided at the admission stage as issues involved in all these appeals are common.

¶44

Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, I am

¶45

deciding these appeals at admission stage by this common judgment.

¶46

It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that common ground raised in all these appeals is, FIR was lodged after five months of the accident. There is delay in filing the FIR

¶47

4/9

¶48

S.S.Kilaje 22-26-33-34-35-55-FA-1904-24-Judgment (C).doc

¶49

but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that the offending bus was not having valid permit at the time of accident, there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy but the Tribunal has not considered this fact. He further submitted that the receipt of premium under IMT 37 was a condition precedent to honour the claim but in absence of such receipt of premium, liability cannot be fixed on the appellant-Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submitted that in some appeals, the claimants have got job in the place of deceased on compassionate ground, hence, their salary amount must be deducted in proportion to the income of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimants in all appeals have received sum of Rs.10,00,000/- under an insurance scheme, this amount is required to be deducted from the compensation amount. Hence, requested to allow all appeals.

¶50

It is contention of learned counsel for respondents /claimants that due to accident, all the occupants in the bus died on the spot except one passenger who was sitting beside the driver. After the accident, due to serious injuries, the said passenger was admitted in hospital and after discharge from the hospital, he filed FIR against the driver of the offending bus. Learned counsel further submitted that though the appellantInsurance Company have raised various grounds in the appeals but no

¶51

5/9

¶52

S.S.Kilaje 22-26-33-34-35-55-FA-1904-24-Judgment (C).doc

¶53

evidence is produced on record in support of the defenses taken by the Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimants have received compensation under insurance scheme but it was not for accidental injuries and it was from their personal insurance policy. Hence,

¶54

the amount received in those personal insurance polices cannot be deducted from compensation which they are liable to receive under the accident claim. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to dismiss the appeals.

¶55

I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶56

It is contention of learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company that there is delay of five months in lodging the FIR. It appears from the record that the appellant-Insurance Company has not disputed about the accident. At the time of the accident, the offending bus was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.

¶57

It is claimants’ case that on 28^th July 2018, the first informant along with deceased was going to Mahableshwar by bus bearing registration No.MH-08-E-9087. Other employees of the respondent – Krishi Vidyapeeth were also occupants of the said bus. The bus was proceeding by Ambenali Valley, at that time, the driver of the bus lost control over the bus

¶58

6/9

¶59

S.S.Kilaje 22-26-33-34-35-55-FA-1904-24-Judgment (C).doc

¶60

and the bus went into the deep valley. All the occupants of the bus died in the said accident on the spot except one passenger-Prakash Sawantdesai, who was sitting beside the driver and after the accident, due to serious injuries, he was admitted in hospital and after discharge from the hospital, he filed FIR against the driver of the offending bus. Hence, I do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company about the delay in filing the FIR as there was no intentional delay in filing the FIR.

¶61

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has raised a ground of not having valid permit of the bus, and that the receipt of the premium under IMT 37 was the condition precedent but no evidence is produced on record to prove these defenses. Hence, I do not find merit in it. It is settled principle of law that if any plea is taken by any party, it has to be proved by cogent evidence. The appellant had not produced any evidence before the Tribunal that at the time of the accident, the bus was not having valid permit and the premium under IMT 37 was condition precedent.

¶62

10 . It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that some of claimants have received compensation under insurance scheme. In my view, the claimants have received compensation under personal insurance policies of the deceased. The compensation

¶63

7/9

¶64

S.S.Kilaje 22-26-33-34-35-55-FA-1904-24-Judgment (C).doc

¶65

received under personal insurance policies cannot be deducted from the accident claim compensation. Though the deceased were employees of respondent-Krishi Vidyapeeth but at the time of the accident, the bus was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the insurance of the occupants of the bus was covered under the insurance policy. Hence, the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

¶66

It is contention of learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company that some of the claimants have received employment on compassionate ground, hence, the salary received on compassionate service be deducted from the compensation received by the claimants. In my view, getting employment on compassionate ground cannot be a ground to deduct their salary from the compensation which they are entitled under accident claim as they are doing service, hence, they are getting salary. The Tribunal has passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it.

¶67

In view of above, I pass the following order :

¶68

O R D E R

¶69

i. All the first appeals are dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶70

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

¶71

iii. The statutory amount in all the appeals be transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon. The

¶72

8/9

¶73

S.S.Kilaje 22-26-33-34-35-55-FA-1904-24-Judgment (C).doc

¶74

parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule.

¶75

iv. Record and proceedings be sent to the Tribunal.

¶76

v. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants tendered chart of apportionment of compensation amount in each appeal. He is directed to produce the chart along with application before the concerned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal shall decide the said application on its own merit.

¶77

vi. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶78

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISH Date:2025.08.12 KILAJE 17:23:40+0700

¶79

( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶80

9/9

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Ratnagiri v. Smita Santosh Zagade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Ratnagiri v. Smita Santosh Zagade 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

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through Its Corporate Office vs Ku. Darshana Sandeep Surana (Applicant NO.1 Represented by Applicant NO.2 Since Minor)

Maharashtra State Transport Corporation, through Divisional Controller, Kolhapur vs Faisal Dilawar Parkar and Ors.

National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Jakiya Firozkhan Pathan and Anr.

Dhondiram Nana Pukale vs State of Maharashtra

Bhurya @ Mushtaque Sayyad vs the State of Maharashtra

Akshay Rajendra Chavan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.