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) 2991

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Judge, J
The New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dr.Shridhar Shripad Karandikar, Smt.Manjiri Shridhar Karandikar, Mahadeo D. Dabade – Respondent
First Appeal No.282 of 2006 | First Appeal No.551 of 2006 | Claim Petition No.137 of 2003



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Poonam Mittal
For the Respondents: Mr. Tejpal Ingale

Negligence was primarily attributed to the truck driver, resulting in improper related deductions for compensation, leading to a revised total of Rs.48,81,816 in favor of the claimants.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Negligence and quantum of compensation - Fatal accident involving a Maruti Van and a truck, resulted in deaths of multiple individuals including the driver - MACT awarded Rs.5,15,000/- as compensation, which was contested by both parties - The court found negligence primarily with the offending truck's driver due to lack of caution, resulting in collision - Claims established regarding the deceased's earnings and future prospects, leading to a total compensation enhancement to Rs.48,81,816/-. (Paras 8, 10, 25, 34)

(B) Negligence - The principle of 'last opportunity' applied; the driver of the truck could have avoided the accident. (Paras 21, 22)

(C) Award calculation errors - Incorrect deductions and failure to consider future prospects were contested, leading to adjustments in the final compensation amount.(Paras 24, 29, 34)

Facts of the case:
The accident occurred on 28 July 2002, leading to the death of five individuals in the Maruti Van, with the driver and the insurance company being respondents in various claims.

Findings of Court:
The negligence was primarily assessed towards the truck driver, with a lack of evidence supporting claims of contributory negligence by the deceased, leading to an increase in compensation.

Issues: The main issues included determining negligence, the quantum of compensation, and evaluating the deceased's income and future prospects.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the responsibility of the truck driver to prevent the accident, underscoring the principle of care in negligence claims, and recalibrated compensation based on lawful parameters for future income and deductions.

Result: Appeals allowed in part; compensation adjusted and enhanced to Rs. 48,81,816/- with interest.

Table of Content
1. accident details and parties involved (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. incident and claims description (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments regarding negligence and compensation (Para 10 , 11)
4. evidence and examination of claimants' arguments (Para 13)
5. court's finding on negligence of driver (Para 14 , 16 , 20)
6. calculation of compensation based on salary and prospects (Para 15 , 22 , 29)
7. negligence analysis and evidence (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 21)
8. assessment of compensation (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30)

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 accid

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