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.