Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4292
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS OFFICER NEERAJ KUMAR JAIN – Appellant
Versus
MR.GANESH NAMDEV DAGADE AND ANR. – Respondent
FA 489 / 2021
Mr. Rajesh Kanojia i/by Res Juris, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. T. J. Mendon, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision due to the Appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence regarding the driver's license and intoxication, emphasizing the need for credible proof in such claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Validity of driving license - The issues involved pertain to the driver of the offending vehicle lacking a valid driving license and being under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident. The Tribunal's findings were contested on the grounds of insufficient evidence regarding the driver's license and intoxication. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Evidence - The court noted that the Appellant failed to produce necessary evidence from the RTO or medical reports to substantiate claims regarding the driver's license and intoxication. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was unlicensed and intoxicated during the accident, but the Tribunal found no merit in these claims due to lack of supporting evidence. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's award of consortium and funeral expenses was deemed excessive based on precedent, leading to a reduction in the awarded amount. (Paras 6-7)
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the driver's license and the intoxication of the driver at the time of the accident. (Paras 1-3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of producing credible evidence to support claims regarding the driver's license and intoxication, affirming the Tribunal's decision due to lack of merit in the Appellant's arguments. (Paras 5-6)
Result: The Appeal is partly allowed.
ORAL JUDGMENT . :
1. The issues involved in this appeal are at the time of accident the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license and the driver of the offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor.
2. It is contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that at the time of accident the driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license. To prove it, investigating officer was examined but, his evidence was not considered by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel further submitted that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor, but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal. 3. It is contention of learned Counsel for Respondent/Claimant that to prove the defense that driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license at the time of accident, no officer from RTO office is examined no any medical certificate produced on record to show that driver of offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects and on that basis Judgment and Order is passed, no interference is required in it.
4. I have heard both learned Counsels, perused the Judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, (for short “the Tribunal”).
5. It is contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license but, to prove said fact, no witness from RTO office is examined by the Appellant/Insurance Company.
Hence, I do not see merit in it.
6. It is contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor. To prove this fact, Investigating Officer was examined but no medical evidence or medical report is produced on record to show that the driver of offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor, hence, I do not see merit in it. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on higher side under the head of love and affection Rs. 1 lakh and for funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-. As per the view of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram , 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) , each claimant is entitled for Rs. 48,000/- as consortium amount and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 18,000/- for loss of estate, the total of it comes to Rs. 84,000/-, if this amounts deducts from the amount considered by the Tribunal i.e. 1,25,000/- it comes to Rs. 41,000/- this is excess amount.
7. In view of above, I pass following Order.
ORDER
a) The Appeal is partly allowed.
b) The Appellant-Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw Rs.41,000/- along with proportionate interest thereon out of the deposited amount.
c) The Respondent-Claimant is permitted to withdraw balance amount with proportionate interest thereon.
d) The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal alongwith accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rule.
8. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed off.
