2025:BHC-AUG:10708 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2025 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., through it’s Authorized Signatory, 2^nd Floor, Adventure Tower, Opp. Oberai Hotel, Savedi Road, Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Authorized Signatory/Senior Manager, 01^st Floor, Plot No. 233 and 234, Shree Swami Samarth Shrushti, above Karnatak Bank, Samarth Nagar, Near Varad Ganesh Mandir, Aurangabad.

.. APPELLANT (Org. Respondent No.1)

VERSUS

1. Savita w/o. Shrikisan Ghadge, Age 39 years, Occ. Household, 2. Nikita d/o. Shikisan Ghadge, Age 19 years, Occ. Education, Minor, 3. Pawan S/o. Shrikisan Ghadge, Age 17 years, Occ. Education, Minor, (Being minor u/g. Of his mother i.e. respondent No.1)

4. Sow. Alusha W/o. Uttam Ghadge, Age 64 years, Occ. Household, 5. Uttam S/o. Limbaji Ghadge, Age 62 years, Occ. Nil, All R/o. Satephal, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.

6. Azeem Majeed Shaikh, Age 42 years, Occ. Owner, R/o. Miyanbhai Colony, Ambejogai {2}

Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed.

7. Maqsued Sayyad Munshi Sayyed, Age 45 years, Occ. Driver, R/o. Patoda, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.

.. RESPONDENTS Mr. M.R. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant Mr. S.S. Dargad, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

RESERVED ON : 24TH MARCH, 2025.

PRONOUNCED ON : 9th APRIL, 2025.

JUDGMENT :-

1. The appellant/respondent No.1 impugns judgment and award dated 14.7.2023 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Beed in M.A.C.P. No. 291 of 2019 by which the claim for compensation of Rs. 27,09,142/- has been allowed directing the owners and insurer to pay said amount to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (original claimants).

(For sake of convenience, parties are referred by their original status in the claim petition.)

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 instituted M.A.C.P. No. 291 of 2019 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation towards accidental death of late Srikisan Uttam Ghadge. It is contention of claimants that on 19.05.2019, late Shrikisan was driving a Tipper bearing Registration No. MH-48/T-6264 from Ambejogai towards Kallam. Another tipper, bearing Registration No. MH44/7676 came from opposite direction in high and excessive speed, gave forcible dash to the Tipper of Shrikisan, due to which, he suffered fatal injuries and breathed his last on 2.6.2019. According to claimants, they were dependent on income of late Shrikishan,who was earning Rs. 14,000/- p.m. being employed as {3}

driver on the Tipper. Apart from that, he was holding agricultural land and adding income to the family.

3. The claim was contested by owner, driver and insurer of tipper bearing Registration No. MH-44/7676 on the ground that late Shrikisan himself was author of accident. Immediately after incident, the offence was registered against him and finally he has been charge sheeted for the offence of rash and negligent driving. The claim as to loss of dependency income of deceased was also denied. The claimants, in order to prove negligence on the part of respondent No.3, examined 3 eye witnesses of the incident, apart from CW-5 Pandurang, employee of deceased Shrikisan.

4. The Tribunal, after evaluation of rival contentions and evidence concluded that respondent No.3 was solely responsible for the accident Eventually, assessed compensation to the tune of Rs.

27,09,142/-.

5. Mr. M.R. Deshmukh, learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance company vehemently submits that the thrust of claimants to bring home the accident and involvement of vehicle is on the FIR/ Spot Panchanama and other police papers, which are admitted in evidence by consent of parties. The contents of documents are required to be read as a whole in the light of exposition of law by Supreme Court of India in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company vs. Pramlal Shukla reported in

2007 AIR SCW 3591.

6. He would further submit that all the three so-called eye witnesses are unreliable and got up witnesses. Their pres