RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MURLIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original respondent no.02 - Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 175 of 2016 by learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, dated 22-06-2018, whereby the petition filed by present respondents no.01 and 02 came to be partly allowed.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the appeal are, that the original claimants had filed the claim petition for getting compensation on account of death of their son Krushna Murlidhar Kabra, who expired on Nagar-Pune road in front of Bandhan Bank, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar, on 31-12-2015. Deceased Krishna along with his friend were proceeding on motorcycle bearing No. MH-16/BN-9988. Deceased himself was driving the same whereas his friend was pillion rider. They were dashed by Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing No. MH12/MB-6471 which had come in rash and negligent manner. The dash was from back side. Both the riders of the motorcycle received severe injuries. Deceased was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar and then to Nobel Hospital, Ahmednagar. However, he succumbed to injuries on 01-01-2016. The driver of Bolero vehicle has been prosecuted by police. Respondent no.01 was the owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with respondent no.02 on the date of the accident. Deceased was aged 22 years and was taking education in M.Com. It was contended that he was doing private job and getting monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/-. He was in share purchasing and selling business and in addition, he was getting Rs.3000/- per month. Thus, he was getting total income of Rs. 21,000/- per month. Therefore, claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/-.

(3.) The claim petition was resisted by both the respondents by filing separate written statement. They have denied all the averments in the petition, especially age, income and occupation of the deceased. They have also denied the allegations in respect of rashness and negligence. The Insurance Company had taken statutory defence.