AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
judgment and order dated 08.12.2003 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Buldana, whereby respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 were
granted compensation of Rs. 8,19,640/- along with interest at the rate of
nine per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim before the
Tribunal.
The husband of respondent No.1, who was working as Police
Constable, died in an accident on 19.05.1998 when the jeep in which he
was travelling, collided with a bus of the Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (MSRTC). The respondent No.1 being the widow of the
deceased, along with her minor children and her mother-in-law, filed a
claim petition before the Tribunal.
By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has
granted the aforesaid relief to the respondents/claimants, directing that
the respondent/MSRTC on one part and the appellant and the
respondent/owner of the vehicle on the other part shall be equally liable to
pay the quantum of compensation determined. The said order of the
Tribunal is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.
Smt. Smita Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant submits that the quantum of compensation granted by the
Tribunal is on the higher side as the basis of calculation was erroneous and
further that the finding of contributory negligence rendered by the
Tribunal, whereby half of the liability was foisted on the appellant, is also
unsustainable. None appears on behalf the respondents/claimants. Ms.
Archana Lanjewar, Advocate holding for Shri S.C. Mehadia, learned
Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.6/MSRTC.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and award
as also the documents on record, the question that arises for consideration
is whether the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal deserves
interference.
Insofar as the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in
respect of quantum of compensation, it is found that the Tribunal has
taken into account salary certificate that is produced on record since the
deceased was working as Police Constable. The monthly income has been
arrived after deducting the tax component and upon rendering a finding
about the age of the deceased on the basis of evidence on record,
multiplier has been applied by the Tribunal to arrive at a figure of
compensation. The Tribunal has also added amounts towards loss of
consortium and towards funeral expenses. An analysis of the evidence on
record shows that the findings rendered by the Tribunal cannot be said to
be erroneous insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned.
As regards the contention about contributory negligence,
nothing substantial could be pointed out to show that the findings
rendered by the Tribunal were erroneous or unsustainable. In that view of
the matter, the apportionment of liability for payment of compensation as
directed by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. An attempt was also
made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to demonstrate that there
was breach of conditions of policy and that an offence was registered
against respondent/MSRTC in respect of the accident in question and that,
therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company was not liable.
There is lack of material on record to support the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.
In this backdrop, I do not find any merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. It is pointed out that the
amount that was payable by the appellant/Insurance Company was
already deposited in the Tribunal when this appeal was filed. Accordingly,
the respondents/claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same along
with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn. There shall be no order as
to costs.