SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2992

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
RAJESH S. PATIL, J
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. – Appellant
Versus
DR. SHRIDHAR SHRIPAD KARANDIKAR AND ORS. – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO.282 OF 2006 | FIRST APPEAL NO.551 OF 2006



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.Poonam Mittal
For the Respondents: Mr.Tejpal S. Ingale, Mr.Abhishek T. Ingle, Ms.Priyanka Babar

Liability for vehicular accident established on evidence of negligence; total compensation for wrongful death increased based on proper assessment of income and future prospects.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeals from the MACT award regarding compensation for the death of Captain Shailendra Karandikar in a vehicular accident. The claims arose from a collision between a Maruti Van and a truck, resulting in multiple fatalities. The MACT awarded Rs.5,15,000/- to the claimants. The Insurance Company argued against both liability and quantum of compensation. The court affirmed the MACT’s findings on negligence, attributing fault to the truck driver, and addressed quantum concerns, ultimately increasing the compensation amount. (Paras 15-36)

(B) Negligence - The MACT found the truck driver to be negligent based on witness testimonies and evidence presented. The court held the principle of last opportunity applicable, stating that the truck driver had a duty to avoid the collision. (Paras 16-22)

(C) Quantum of Compensation - The original tribunal's calculations for lost income and deductions were revisited, considering additional allowances and future prospects, adjusting the total compensation significantly. (Paras 23-32)

(D) Final compensation determined at Rs.48,81,816/-, from which the earlier awarded amount was deducted, resulting in a net increase granted to claimants of Rs.43,66,816/- with interest. (Paras 34-37). Parties involved: Insurance Company, claimants being the parents of the deceased, and the owner of the truck.

Table of Content
1. introduction of case facts and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. claims and defenses raised by parties. (Para 10 , 11 , 13)
3. court's assessment of evidence and negligence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. quantum of compensation and deductions. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 31)
5. calculation of total compensation. (Para 29)

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. First appeal No.282 of 2006 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act , 1988 by the Insurance Company and First Appeal No. 551 of 2006, both challenging the judgment and award dated 28 September 2005, passed in Claim Petition No.137 of 2003 by Member MACT, Sangli.

FACTS

2. On 28 July 2002 at about 2.00 p.m., in the afternoon, on Sangli-Kolhapur Road near Akashwani Kendra, Sangli, one captain Shailendra Karandikar was driving Maruti Van Bearing Registration No. KA-23/M-466. His wife (Sonali), two months old son Sumedh, Vaijayanti Madhav Akhave (Maternal aunt of Sonali), Madhav Dattatraya Akhave (husband of Vaijayanti) and Devdutta Madhav Akhave minor son of Vaijayanti and Madhav Akhave, were travelling along with him. They were returning from Narsobawadi to Sangli. The Maruti Van was proceeding South to North direction. The owner of the Maruti Van was a family friend Mr. Sanjay Ganesh Patankar resident of Sangli. It is undisputed that captain Shailendra Karandikar was holding valid driving license on the date of the accident.

3. As Maruti Van driven by captain Shailendra Karandikar proceeded towards South to North Akashwani Kendra, truck bearing No. MH-05-1420 (for short “offending truck”) came from the opposite direction from North to South. There was collusion between offending truck and Maruti Van driven by captain Shailendra. As such, accident took place and in the said accident, captain Shailendra, his wife Sonali, son Sumedh, Madhav Akhave died on the spot and Vaijayanti (maternal aunt Sonali) died in hospital. However, the son of Madhav Akhave and Vaijayanti Akhave, Devdutta Akhave, survived.

4. Five claim Petitions were filed in total, arising out of said accident. The present proceedings is pertaining to the death claim of the deceased captain Shailendra Karandikar. Motor Accident Claim Petition No.137 of 2007 was filed by two claimants being the father and mother of the deceased captain Shailendra Karandikar, in MACT Sangli claiming compensation amount of Rs.18,23,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition from Respondents jointly and severally, i.e., Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending truck and Respondent No.2 New India Assurance Company limited, who were insurer of the offending truck.

5. Respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle did not lead evidence neither file their written statement therefore, the matter proceeded ex-parte against the Respondent No.1 owner of the offending truck.

6. Respondent No.2, the Insurance Company filed their written statement, and denied the contentions of the claim Petition.

7. Claimant lead their evidence by Claimant No.1 stepping in the witness box and leading evidence. The said witness was cross examined by the Advocate for Insurance Company. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company examined two witnesses i.e. Respondent No.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle and witness No.2 Mr.Ajay Paul being the Photographer who clicked photo of the accident site. Both the witnesses of the Insurance Company were examined by the Claimant’s Advocate.

8. Based on the Issues framed, the MACT answered the issues in the following manner : -

“ 1) Whether the petitioners prove that their son-

Shailendra Shridhar Karandikar died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing No. MH-05/1420 owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2 at the time of accident i.e on 27.07.2002 ?

2) Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the said truck was not holding valid and effective driving

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top