ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SANJAY BHIMRAJ MHASKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - insurance company, who is original opponent No.2 in MACP No. 89 of 2015, has challenged the judgment and award dtd. 30/06/2018, passed by the learned M.A.C.T., Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') in the aforesaid claim on various grounds, such as non-involvement of alleged offending vehicle in the accident, the income of deceased being considered at higher side and that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in breach of condition of the policy.

(2.) It is apparent from the record that on 04/12/2014 at about 7. 00 p.m. deceased Bhausaheb i.e. son of original claimants-respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, was going towards Mohoj Khurd from Tisgaon on motorcycle in moderate speed by observing the traffc rules. However, near Shankaranandi petrol pump, in the vicinity of Tisgaon, one another motorcycle bearing No. MH-16-BG-6035 came from opposite direction in high speed and gave dash to the motorcycle of deceased Bhausaheb. The deceased sustained head injury and resultantly died in hospital. The original claimants, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 then fled claim petition for compensation of Rs.8,00,000.00. The learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.8,24,930.00 to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - claimants inclusive of award under Sec. 140 of the M. C. Act alongwith interest @8% p.a. from the date of application till realization of the entire amount by holding the appellant - insurance company and owner of the offending motorcycle, who is present respondent No.3 are jointly and severally liable.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company submits that though the accident took place on 04/12/2014, but it was reported belatedly on 19/12/2014. He pointed out the fling of FIR belatedly itself shows that involvement of the alleged offending vehicle is an afterthought but the deceased had in fact slipped from his motorcycle without any dash and died due to his own negligence. He further submits that the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding, was not insured and perhaps for the said purpose the involvement of alleged offending vehicle is shown in the accident by collusion of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 -claimants with present respondent No.3 i.e. the owner. He pointed out that the deceased after the accident, was unconscious and therefore, could not have given any information to his father about involvement of the offending motorcycle in the accident. He further submits that the learned Tribunal despite there being any evidence as regards income of the deceased, considered the income at higher side and wrongly passed award for an excessive compensation.