1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.2531 OF 2009 (National Insurance company Ltd. Vs. Smt.Sunita Kisan Patil and others) with FIRST APPEAL NO.1587/2009 (The Branch Manager, National Insurance co.Jalgaon vs. Pushpa Ashok Khiralkar and others) with FIRST APPEAL NOS. 2232/2009 (The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Jalgaon vs. Nandabai Suresh Ingale and others with FIRST APPEAL NO.4109/2008 (National Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Pandit Kishan Khiralkar and others) with FIRST APPEAL NO.4110 OF 2008 (National Insurance co.Ltd vs. Kamalabai Shivaji Gavande Patil and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.V.Kulkarni, Counsel, for the appellant in all the appeals. In FA No.2531/2009 Mr. M.S.Patil, Adv., for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5. Mr. A.G.Kanade, Adv., for respondent No. 9. 2 In FA 1587/2009: Mr. S.P.Tiwari, Adv., h/f Mr. V.B.Patil, Adv., for R.5. Mr. A.G.Kanade, Adv., for R.6. Mr.Manoj Shinde, Adv., h/f Mr.M.K.Goyanka, Adv., for R.4. ... In FA 2232/2009: Mr.B.K.Pawar, Adv. h/f Mr.A.B.Kale, Adv., for R.3 & 4. Mr.Manoj Shinde, Adv., h/f Mr.M.K.Goyanka, Adv., for R.5. Mr. A.G.Kanade, Adv., for R.7. In FA 4109/2008: Mr.S.P.Tiwari, Adv., h/f Mr. V.B.Patil, Adv., for R.4. Mr.B.K.Pawar, Adv., h/f Mr.A.B.Kale, Adv. for R.2. Mr.Manoj Shinde, Adv., h/f Mr.M.K.Goyanka, Adv., for R.3. ... In FA 4110/2008: Mr. S.P.Tiwari, Adv., h/f Mr. V.B.Patil, Adv., for R.4. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:2-3-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. S.V.Kulkarni, Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. Counsel for the claimant (FA No.2531/2009) absent. 3 2. In a group of matters arising out of the same incident, being First Appeal No.3543/2008, 3544/2008, 3545/2008, 3546/2008, 3547/2008, 3548/2008, 3549/2008, 3550/2008 and 3551/2008, by judgment dt.2nd July, 2009, this Court has, after hearing the respective parties appearing for M.P.S.R.T.C., Insurance company of said Transport Company, Insurance Company of the jeep owner and the respective claimants, reached to the finding that, considering the nature of and the circumstances in which the accident has taken place, the responsibility to meet the claim was to be shared/borne equally by the jeep owner and also by the M.P.S.R.T.C., consequently, to be indemnified by both the Insurance Companies of the Jeep and the M.P.S.R.T.C.Bus. 3. Mr.Kanade, Counsel, during the course of his submission, reiterated that since the jeep driver carried passengers in excess of the Insurance policy, there was obliteration of the 4 effect to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and he urged, to discharge the Insurance Company of the jeep from meeting the liability. 4. All these aspects were justifiably considered in the earlier matter. There was no evidence from Insurance Company, to suggest, except the strength of the passengers having reflected in the FIR, that Jeep driver carried passengers in betrayal to principles enunciated in the Insurance policy. Consequently, I do not agree to Mr.Kanade. 5. In the appeal (FA No.2531/2009 - claimant Sunita), the deceased was 35 years old, drawing a salary of Rs.2710/- ( as per Exh.71). Apart from that, deceased was having agricultural income, established from the 7/12 extracts of the property. The income certificate was also produced, which showed that the deceased had an annual income of Rs.75,000/- 5 from the agricultural fields. The learned Judge considered the revenue entries to show the agricultural yield received by the deceased and also reached conclusion, due to loss of life of the deceased, naturally, there is financial loss caused to the family members of the deceased for getting agricultural income which the learned Judge calculated same to be at Rs.37,000/-. 6. The learned Judge made addition of salary and the agricultural income, making it to Rs.66,112/-. From it, made one third deduction and the income, was assessed at Rs.44,075/- annually. He has applied the multiplier of 16. It is apparent, at the time of the accident, the deceased was 30 years old and born on 19.6.1964 (Exh.61). The calculations carried by the learned Judge do not indicate to be excessive. It was in tune with the income and rationale multiplier. I do not see any need to interfere in the same. 6 Consequently, the First Appeal (No.2531/2009) is partly allowed. No change in the award of compensation. The liability to meet the Award is to be shared equally by the owner driver of the jeep with its Insurance Company at one side and the owner of the S.T.Bus MP-09/S-7319 and the appellant Insurance Company. No costs. Civil Application disposed of. 7. In FA Nos.1587/2009(claimant Pushpa ), 2232/2009 ( claimant Nandabai), 4109/2008 (claimant Pandit), and 4110/2008 (claimant Kamalabai), the Award is respectively for Rs.2,30,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.80,000/- and Rs. 1,85,000/-. Though the appellant Insurance Company has challenged the quantum also, however, on analysing evidence and documents, I do not find any unreasonableness on the part of the learned Judge in making the award. Passingly, this position is accepted by Mr.Kulkarni, Counsel, representing the appellant Insurance Company. 7 8. Then comes the question of fixing the liability on the Insurance Company of the jeep owner and also of the M.P.S.R.T.C. I have already elaborately discussed the nature of the accident, the manner in which the vehicles were driven and reached to the conclusion that the liability to meet the respective claims will have to be shared equally by the jeep owner/its insurance company and by M.P.S.R.T.C. and its Insurance Company in equal proportion i.e. 50 per cent each. Hence, in the above referred appeals ( FA Nos. 1587/2009, 2232/2009, 4109/2008, and 4110/2008), no change/modification in the award. The liability is to be shared equally by the owner driver of the jeep with its Oriental Insurance Company at one side and the owner of the S.T.Bus MP-09/S-7319 and the appellant National Insurance Company at other side. Respective First Appeals and Civil Applications disposed of. 8 The amounts deposited by the National Insurance Company in this Court be remitted before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for appropriate directions, to be paid to the respective claimants. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/2531-09fagr