First Appeal No. 547/2009

9th September 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Mrs. M. Naik T. R. Thamke
Respondent Counsel: Ms. Gaitri diwe Mr. P. R. Agrawal
Act Name:

Cases Cited :

JUDGEMENT

1. This appeal is against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Amravati in Claim Petition No. 406/2005. The facts giving rise the present appeal are as under:-

2. On 13.12.2004, deceased Pravin Deshmukh was riding Motor Cycle registration No. MH31/T-400 from Amravati to Tiosa. One Mohan Malode was the pillion rider. The deceased was driving his motor cycle on the correct side of the road. At about 06.00 p.m., when he reached near Agrawal Petrol Pump of Nandgaonpeth, the offending vehicle Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No. MH-27/B-8096 owned by respondent No. 2 (Parties are mentioned as per their nomenclature as before the Claims Tribunal) came from opposite side. The said vehicle was insured by respondent No. 3 (appellant). Respondent No. 1 who was driving in rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed to the motor cycle of deceased. The deceased was thrown on the road and he sustained multiple injuries. He was admitted in the Hospital of Dr. Yadgire. He died during the treatment. The claimants/legal heirs of the deceased filed Claim Petition. The owner and driver of offending motor cycle proceeded ex-parte. The appellant i.e. respondent No. 3 filed written statement. After recording the evidence, the Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 03,31,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization of full amount. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the Insurance Company/appellant filed present appeal.

3. Heard Mrs. M. Naik, learned Advocate for the appellant. She has submitted that there was contributory negligence on part of the deceased. There was no proof of income. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly granted amount of compensation. Heard Ms. Gaitri Diwe, Advocate h/f Mrs. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. She has strongly supported the impugned judgment.

4. There is no evidence by the side of the appellant that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The driver and owner of the offending motor cycle not examined by the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that deceased contributed to the accident.

5. In respect of the amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal recorded the finding that the deceased was doing business of milk. The finding is based on the evidence of the claimants. The amount of Rs. 01,50,000/- of earning per year cannot be said to be excessive. There is no dispute about other findings. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati has rightly recorded its findings. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.