Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5568
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
DEEPALI MAHESH SAWKAR AND OTHRS – Respondent
FA 1155 / 2009
Smt. Harshada Rane, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Yogesh G. Thorat i/b. Mr. Mohan Gawade, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
The court affirmed the Tribunal's finding of negligence on the part of the truck driver, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the inadequacy of the awarded compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Negligence - The appeal concerns an accident where the deceased allegedly attempted to overtake a truck, resulting in a fatal collision. The Tribunal found the truck driver negligent, awarding compensation without considering future prospects. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Negligence - The court emphasized that the evidence of the pillion-rider was credible and supported by police records, establishing the truck driver's liability. (Paras 5.3-5.4)
(C) Compensation - The Tribunal's award for consortium was deemed inadequate, with reference to the Supreme Court's ruling on the appropriate amounts for consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. (Paras 5.5)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was riding a motorcycle with a pillion-rider when a truck turned suddenly, causing a fatal accident. The claimants argued for higher compensation due to the negligence of the truck driver.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the truck driver at fault and awarded compensation, which was contested by the Insurance Company.
Issues: The main issues included the determination of negligence and the adequacy of the compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that the evidence supported the claimants' position and that the truck driver was negligent.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation amount.
Oral Judgment :
1. The issues involved in this appeal is accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased as he tried to overtake the offending truck and, in that attempt, he gave dash to the rear portion of the truck. Learned counsel further submitted that truck driver had given signal by his hand when he was taking turn but the deceased attempted to over take the truck and in that attempt, he gave dash to the offending truck and came under the wheel of the truck. Learned counsel further submitted that the truck driver has deposed before the Tribunal about happening of the accident but his evidence has not been considered by the Tribunal. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.
3. It is contention of leaned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects while awarding compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the offending truck. The pillion-rider on the motorcycle of the deceased has stated that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the offending truck. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side, it be awarded. Hence, requested to dismiss the appeal.
4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and order dated 24th April 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nashik (for short “the Tribunal”) in MACP No.56 of 2006.
5. It is claimants’ case that on 12th November 2005, deceased – Mahesh was proceeding to Jawhar from Nashik on motor bike and his friend – Ramesh Aher was a pillion-rider. When they were proceeding on motorcycle, at about 10.00 am to 10.15 am, the offending truck bearing No.MH-b-7842 was going ahead of their motorcycle. The driver of the offending truck suddenly took turn on the right side without giving any signal and the truck gave dash to the motorbike of the deceased. After the dash, the truck driver did not stop and took “U” turn completely, due to which, the truck ran over the deceased, he sustained severe injuries. He died while taking treatment. An offence was registered against the truck driver.
5.1. To prove the negligence of the deceased, the claimants have examined pillion-rider PW3-Ramesh Aher at Exhibit-77. He has stated that on the day of accident, he and deceased were proceeding on motorcycle. The offending truck was going ahead of their motorcycle, the deceased – Mahesh wanted to overtake the said truck, therefore, he blew the horn, the truck driver gave signal and permitted him to overtake the truck. While they were overtaking the truck, the truck driver took sudden turn, the front wheel of the truck dashed against the motorcycle, due to dash, he and deceased fell on the road. The truck driver then took “U” turn. This witness gave signal to the truck driver before he took the “U” turn to stop the truck but the truck driver did not stop and the truck ran over Mahesh. He further stated that the accident, in question, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. In cross-examination, he admitted that there was space between the truck and motorcycle.
5.2. To prove his defense, the truck driver – Imran Mustafa Maniyar examined himself at Exhibit-93. He has stated that, on the day of accident, he was going on the road. He had to take turn towards right side for fetching water from crusher which was 3-4 km away from Jawahar. While turning the vehicle towards right side, he had given signal with hand, meanwhile he heard the noise from rear side. The truck’s turn was at the verge of completion. By stopping the truck, he got down and saw that one motorbike dashed against the truck on rear side i.e. right side wheel. The said accident occurred on right strip. He further stated that accident occurred due to negligence of the dec
