NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD , AURANGABAD THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. SUNITA W/O MANIK HOLAMBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and Award dated 18-03-2011 in MACP No. 10 of 2010, passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambajogai, District Beed. Thereby, the claimants were granted compensation of Rs. 14,12,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum.

(2.) Shri. S. G. Chapalgaonkar, learned Advocate for the appellant has drawn my attention to the First Informatio Report (FIR) and spot panchanama and wanted to argue that there was rashness and contributory negligence on the part of the deceased on the ground that he was on the wrong side of the road, but on verification of the spot panchanama and factual situation, he has conceded this point. Even the spot panchanama shows that bike was on the correct side, whereas, the Jeep insured was on wrong side. Shri. Chapalgaonkar, Ld. advocate then argued on the point of quantum. He submitted that there was no documentary evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. from agriculture and dairy business as held by the learned trial court and this assumption has no base of documents. Though CW2 Gram Sevak Dnyoba Dahiphale was examined, he has not brought the original register to show that the deceased was possessing milching cattles as contended. There was no evidence to show that the deceased was supplying milk of particular quantity every day. He, therefore, submitted that the assumption of income at Rs. 10,000/- has led to excessive compensation to the claimants.

(3.) He relied on the Judgment in the cases - (1) United India Insurance Vs. Sheela Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509, (2) New India Insurance Vs. Charlee, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and (3) State of Haryana Vs. Jagbir Kaur, (2003) 7 SCC 484, to submit that while calculating the loss of agriculture income, it must be remembered that the lands are available for the legal heirs and what it lost is the skill of management.