Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. JAWALKAR, J.
Sufal CH Ghorui & Another – Appellants
Versus
Wilson Gilbert Viegas & Others – Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 80 of 2012 & 103 of 2013
Decided on : 04-12-2020
For the Appellants :Vallabh D. Pangam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Abhay Nachinolkar, E. Afonso, Advocates.
Premature discharge of a party and unjustified reduction in compensation amount can lead to the setting aside of the judgment and award.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - M.V. Act Section 140, Section 105(1) of C.P.C. - The court discussed the discharge of the Insurance Company, the calculation of compensation, and the liability of the parties under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court found errors in discharging the Insurance Company prematurely and in reducing the compensation amount without justification. The court set aside the judgment and award, directed the restoration of the claim petition, and remanded the matter for fresh hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident, claiming that the respondent driver was negligent. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, leading to appeals for enhancement and setting aside of the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found errors in discharging the Insurance Company prematurely and in reducing the compensation amount without justification. The court set aside the judgment and award, directed the restoration of the claim petition, and remanded the matter for fresh hearing.
Issues: The issues included the calculation of compensation, the liability of the Insurance Company, and the discharge of the respondent from the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discharge of the Insurance Company was premature and that the reduction in compensation amount was unjustified, leading to the setting aside of the judgment and award.
Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, the judgment and award were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for fresh hearing.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Vallabh Pangam, learned Advocate for the Appellant in First Appeal No.80 of 2012 and respondent No.1 in First Appeal No.103 of 2013, Mr. Abhay Nachinolkar, learned Advocate for the appellant in First Appeal No.103 of 2013 and respondent No.1 in First Appeal No.80 of 2012 and Mr. E. Afonso, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in both the appeals.
2. The present appeals are filed being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, in Claim Petition No.7 of 2011.
3. The First Appeal No.80 of 2012 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and First Appeal No. 103 of 2013 is filed by the respondent No.1 in the claim Petition for setting aside the judgment as Insurance Company was discharged from the proceedings prematurely and he was held liable to pay the compensation.
4. It is the case of the claimant before the Claims Tribunal, that he was 28 years old at the relevant time, in business, self employed and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On 18.12.2007, he was riding the Honda Activa scooter bearing registration No.GA-05-A-2334 and proceeding from Kundaim to Adcolina, Bhanastari. On reaching near Manaswada, Kundaim, at about 11.30 hrs., the respondent No.1 came driving the passenger bus bearing registration No.GA-02-T-4555 from behind and gave a violent dash to his scooter. The respondent No.1 was driving the bus at a very fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner and due to the impact which was sudden and forceful, he fell down on the side of the road and the front left tyre of the passenger bus went over his left leg and he suffered crushing injuries. It is also the case of the claimant that the respondent No.1 further went and dashed against Hotel Novdurga and the house of one Zalmi. The accident had occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the respondent No.1 alone who had driven the bus in total disregard to the safety of the other users or the traffic on the road. He had undergone an operation due to the crushing injuries and his left leg had to be amputated below the knee. He had also suffered several bleeding injuries and abrasions on his face and body, as also his elbows and knee. He was in the Hospital and thereafter had suffered immense pain and agony. He was handicapped and disabled for the rest of his life due to the amputation of his left leg. He was not able to perform those activities which he used to perform prior to the accident and had become dependent on others for his day to day needs. His marriage prospects too were affected on account of these injuries. On all these counts, claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,50,000/-. The respondent No.1, as the driver cum owner, and the respondent No.2 being Insurance Company are liable to pay the compensation.
5. After considering the pleadings, issues were framed and the learned Tribunal awarded amount of Rs.10,12,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
6. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, appeals bearing First Appeal No.80 of 2012 came to be filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and 103 of 2013 is filed by respondent No.1 as he only held liable and the Insurance company was discharged on the application by the Insurance Company. A common paperbook for both the appeal is prepared.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Vallabh Pangam in First Appeal No.80 of 2012 submitted that while granting compensation the Claim's Tribunal has not considered evidence on record in its proper perspectives. The learned Tribunal erred in holding that the claimant is entitled only to compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- as against claim of Rs.20,50,000/- and further erred in actually granting sum of only Rs.10,12,500/- without any cogent and justifiable reason specifically when he answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the claimant i.e. about type of accident and grievous injury and amputation of leg. There is no basis for award
