AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Budihal R.B., J.—Since all these fours appeals are in respect of the same accident and since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, they have been taken together to dispose of them by common judgment.
MFA No. 31013/2011 and MFA No. 31010/2011 are preferred by appellant/Insurance company, who is respondent No. 4 in MFA No. 30557/2011 and MFA No. 30558/2011, challenging the liability fastened on it and also quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 6.01.2011 passed by II Addl. M.A.C.T. and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in Main M.V.C. No. 516/2009 clubbed in M.V.C. No. 517/2009.
MFA Nos. 30557/2011 and MFA 30558/2011 are filed by appellants/claimants challenging the quantum of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
The brief facts of the case that on 18.02.2009 Abed and Mohammed Imran had been to Kurcha village on a motor cycle bearing Regn. No. KA 28 H 8032 in order to purchase fetch grapes from the land of a farmer at Kurcha, Tq. Kavathe Mahakal Dist. Sangli and when they are going to Kurcha, at about 9.45 p.m., a TATA Sumo bearing Regn.No. MH-20-E-3455 drove by its driver came from their hind side in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against their motor cycle, as a result, they fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot and they are the sole earning members in their family. Hence, the claimants therein, filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal claiming compensation.
The Respondent appeared through their counsel and filed their defence, wherein they have denied the case of the claimants with regard to the mode, occurrence of the accident and its reason, and also categorically denied the negligent act of the offending vehicle, avocation of the deceased, age, income, dependency of the deceased each and every averment of the claim petitions has been denied false and incorrect. It is further alleged in the counter of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that as respondent No. 1 was having a valid licence of the said Tata Sumo jeep bearing Regn. No. MH-20-E-3455 and it was insured with respondent No. 4 and thereby respondent No. 4 is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No. 4/Insurance Company has also contended that it is not liable to pay compensation amount.
On the basis of said pleadings, ultimately, the Tribunal has allowed the petitions in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,77,200/- in MVC No. 516/2009 and Rs. 3,98,800/- in MVC No. 517/2009 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. holding that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 therein are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Tribunal, Insurance Company has come up by preferring the appeals in MFA 31013/2011 and MFA 31010/2011 and the claimants therein have also preferred the appeals in MFA No. 30557/2011 and MFA 30558/2011 before this Court.
Heard the arguments learned counsel appearing for appellant/Insurance Company in MFA No. 31013/2011 and MFA No. 31010/2011 and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants in MFA No. 31013/2011 and MFA No. 31010/2011, who are the appellants/claimants in MFA Nos. 30557/2011 and MFA 30558/2011.
Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the documents produced in these cases, they are in Marati Language and at the first instance, as per Ex. P-2 when the vehicle Panchanama was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses, the vehicle invoked is bearing Regn. No. MH-10-E-3455 but after 4 to 5 months, the vehicle numbers has been changed and it is mentioned as MH-20-E-3455. Learned counsel has also submitted that after four months of alleged incident, the driver of the vehicle came before the police and has produced the vehicle, and the vehicle was bearing No. MH-10-E-3455. Learned counsel has submitted that subsequently, after completing the investigation and at the time of filing the charge sheet, the vehicle number was mentioned as MH-20-E-3455. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the document produced and marked as Ex. P-2 in MVC No. 516/2009 shows that the vehicle involved is MH-10-E-3455 as mentioned in the said exhibited document, which is in Marati Language. But when its translated copy was produced before the Tribunal in respect of Ex. P-2 in MVC No. 516/2009, in the translated copy the number of vehicle was not mentioned correctly. As the translated copy was not showing the vehicle number as contained in the document Ex. P-2, it is handicap for the Insurance company before the Tribunal while cross-examining the witnesses and the counsel was not able to follow correctly the number, because of this confusion. He has submitted that the vehicle number has been wrongly shown in the translated copy. The vehicle has been completely changed by the Police and charge sheet was filed in respect of vehicle bearing No. MH-20-E-3455. Hence, submitted that in view of this, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are to be allowed and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal be set-aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MFA No. 30557/2011 and MFA No. 30558/2011, who are the respondents in MFA Nos. 31013/2011 and MFA No. 31010/2011, during the course of his arguments has submitted that the vehicle involved is bearing No. MH-20-E-3455. After proper investigation, the police have correctly mentioned in the charge sheet about the number of vehicle involved and there is no mistake on the part of Police to involve the said vehicle bearing No. MH-20-E-3455. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is no change of the vehicle as alleged by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. With regard to the translation, there is no wrong translation of the document Ex. P-2. Hence, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/Insurance Company is not correct and submitted that appeals filed by the claimants be allowed and the compensation be enhanced as claimed in the appeal memorandum.
I have perused the grounds urged in the appeal memorandums and also the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, so also the oral and documentary evidence.
Perusing the document Ex. P-2, vehicle panchanama, which is in Marati language, produced in MVC No. 516/2009, the vehicle number is mentioned as MH-10-E-3455. But looking to the translated copy attached to this document it is spot panchanama and it is not the translation of Ex. P-2. As submitted by both sides, in the charge sheet the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident is mentioned as MH-20-E-3455.
Perusing these materials on record, there is every force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that in one document, which is relied upon by the claimants, which is as per Ex. P-2 in M.V.C. No. 516/2009 the vehicle number as MH-10-E-3455, then how this document can overcome and the Tribunal can pass the judgment and award in respect of the vehicle said to have been involved in the accident as MH-20-E-3455 So this aspect requires clarification and also further evidence by the parties on both sides to know exactly whether the vehicle involved was bearing No. MH-10-E-3455 or it was MH-20-E-3455, as the documents are in Marati Language, even there may be some confusion with regard to the contents of the documents.
Looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that to get clarification, it requires recording the evidence on of both sides, which cannot be conveniently done by this Court. Therefore, to do justice to both sides, the matters require to be remanded.
Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. MFA No. 31013/2011 and MFA No. 31010/2011 are allowed and the judgment and award dated 06.01.2011 passed by II Addl. M.A.C.T. and Additional District and Sessions; Judge, Bidar in Main M.V.C. No. 516/2009 clubbed in M.V.C. No. 517/2009 is set-aside and the matters are remanded back to the concerned Tribunal to record the additional evidence in the matters by giving opportunity to both sides and to decide the matters afresh.
ii. In view of allowing the appeals filed by the insurance company and setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and remanding the matter to Tribunal for fresh disposal, the appeals filed by the claimants in MFA No. 30557/2011 and MFA No. 30558/2011 seeking enhancement of compensation are disposed of and these two appeals are also remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.
iii. Since, the accident is of the year 2009, the Tribunal has to take up the matters on priority basis and to dispose of the matters as early as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
iv. Office is directed to send the records immediately to the concerned Tribunal.
v. Both sides are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.03.2015.
vi The amount deposited by the appellants/Insurance Company is ordered to be refunded for the present.