First Appeal No. 2478 of 2011. Case: United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Parubai Vinayak Katake & Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 2478 of 2011
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Ketan Joshi, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. V. S. Tadake, Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advs.
JudgesR. M. Savant, J.
IssueIndian Penal Code - Sections 279, 337, 338; Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 149(2), 173; Constitution of India - Article 136
Judgement DateJune 13, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

  1. Admit. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith.

  2. The above First Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune ("MACT" for short), by which order, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the claim Petition were directed to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/to the Petitioners in the claim Petition towards full and final compensation including Rs.50,000/already paid towards No Fault Liability, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition i.e. from 08.11.2000 on the whole amount till the date of payment towards 'No Fault Liability' and thereafter at the same rate of interest over the balance amount till the realisation of the entire amount.

  3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above First Appeal can in brief be stated thus:

    The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the original claimants. The Respondent No.4 is the original Respondent No.1. i.e. driver. The Respondent No.5 is the original Respondent No.2 i.e. the owner of the vehicle and the Appellant which is the Insurance Company is the Respondent No.3 to the claim Petition. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the wife and the two sons of the deceased Vinayak Laxman Katake. The said Vinayak expired in the fatal accident that took place on 30.11.1999. The accident took place on the PuneJejuri road in front of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Udyan at Saswad. The Respondent No.4 herein who was the driver was driving a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. MH01/ U4942 owned by the Respondent No.5 herein and insured with the Appellant herein who as indicated above was the Respondent No.3 in the claim Petition. It was the case of the claimants that the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner from Jejuri towards Pune and it was also being driven at high speed. In the said process it knocked down the deceased Vinayak causing serious injuries to him. He was taken to the hospital, but succumbed to his injuries on 30.11.1999. After the accident, the Head Constable of the Police Station concerned had lodged an FIR which resulted in registration of crime bearing No.87 of 1999 under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and also under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Respondent No.1 i.e. the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle. The claimants thereafter filed the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.811 of 2001. The claimants being the legal heirs claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/as compensation on account of the death of the deceased. This claim was founded on the fact that the deceased was a pensioner and drawing a pension of Rs.4500/per month and the compensation claimed for the loss of estate as also for pecuniary loss caused to them on account of death of their father the said Vinayak.

  4. The Respondent No.2 i.e. the Respondent No.5 herein filed its written statement. It was averred in the said written statement that the vehicle was insured with the Appellant herein i.e. the Respondent No.3 in the claim Petition. It was further averred that the driver who was driving the vehicle which met with the accident was having valid driving licence at the time of his employment. It was further averred that Respondent No.2 had not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

  5. The Appellant herein i.e. the Respondent No.3 to the claim Petition filed its written statement. It was sought to be contended in the written statement that the claimants who are the major sons of the deceased were not dependent on him and therefore they are not entitled for compensation. It was contended that licence No.WB0130652 allegedly issued in favour of the driver was not issued by the RTO to him but was issued to one Shivram Mondal. On the basis that the licence of the Respondent No.1 was fake and therefore the owner had not complied with the provisions of 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was sought to be contended that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the Insurance Company was therefore not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT