SULABAI SHAMRAO NAVASARE Vs. BALKRISHNA NAMDEO JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara (for short "the Tribunal").

(2.) It is contention of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. The RTO record produced on record, shows that the offending vehicle was insured for one year but the Tribunal has considered that it was for one month, on that ground, the Tribunal has directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation and has exonerated the Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has observed that the deceased was working with BEST Undertaking as Establishment Officer and was drawing Rs.1902.91 as gross salary and Rs.1381.00 as net salary. While calculating the compensation, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased at Rs.900.00 per month, which is on lower side. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has applied wrong multiplier, not awarded future prospects and has awarded consortium amount on lower side. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.

(3.) It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was for the period of one month only. In the column of special condition of the cover note, it was mentioned that the period of insurance was for one month only and its shows the amount of premium paid to be Rs.46.00. The column No.4 mentioned in the cover note is a clerical error. A booklet was produced on record, which is at Exhibit-135. It shows that the premium for public risk policy is at least Rs.120.00. In the present case, only Rs.46.00 was paid as premium, it is only for one month. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has discussed the evidence regarding premium of policy in detail and, on that basis, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company and has directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation, which is proper. Learned counsel further submitted that the owner of the offending vehicle did not produce the original policy before the Tribunal, it shows that the cover not was only for one month and the Tribunal has considered this fact. Learned counsel further submitted that the income of the deceased considered by the Tribunal is proper, no evidence was produced on record to prove the income of the deceased. Hence, requested to dismiss the appeal.