1 FIRST APPEAL NO.: 2219 OF 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.: 2219 OF 2010 *** ICICI General Insurance Company Ltd., Adalat Road, Aurangabad. Through its Branch Manager. ... APPEALLANT. [ORI.RESPDT. NO.3.] Versus 1. Muktabai W/o Ajinath Shinde, Age: 34 years, Occ.: Household, 2. Navnath S/o Ajinath Shinde, Age: 34 years, Occ. Household, 3. Bhausaheb S/o Ajinath Shinde, Age: 32 years, Occ.: Household, 4. Balu S/o Ajinath Shinde, Age: 30 years, Occ.: Household, 5. Kailash S/o Ajinath Shinde, Age: 27 years, Occu.: Household, All R/o Soutada, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS [NOS.1 & 5 ARE ORI.CLAIMANTS] *** Mr. S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. V. M. Chate, Advocate for Respondent No.6. *** CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED:- 8th SEPTEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Admit. Appeal is taken up for final disposal 2 FIRST APPEAL NO.: 2219 OF 2010 with consent of the parties. 2. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company taking exception to the judgment and Award passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.240 of 2008 decided on 11th February, 2010. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5 Lacs inclusive of the amount paid towards no fault liability to the claimants. The Tribunal also directed payment of interest on the above amount at the rate of 9% p.a. to be reckoned from the date of presentation of the application till realisation of the amount. 3. The accident, in question, occurred on 5th October, 2008 at 05.30 p.m. at Amalner-Kotan road. Deceased Ajinath was a pedestrian proceeding towards village Amalner. At that time the Respondent, who was riding a TVS Star City Motorcycle was proceeding towards Amalner. He gave dash to the deceased who was pedestrian and as a result of impact given by the motorcycle d3eceased Ajinath sustained serious injuries. He was admitted to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him during the occurrence of the accident. 4. The deceased was 55 years old of age and he 3 FIRST APPEAL NO.: 2219 OF 2010 was a private contractor. His yearly income was around Rs.2 Lacs. 5. Taking into consideration all relevant factors and after considering the evidence put on record by the claimants, the Tribunal allowed the application tendered by the heirs of deceased Ajinath claiming compensation and directed the Respondents - owner of the vehicle as well as insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lacs inclusive of the amount paid towards no fault liability. 6. The only grievance made by the Insurance company is that the insurance company did not lead evidence in the matter as the counsel for the company remained present only on one occasion and did not cause appearance on subsequent dates of the proceeding. It is the contention of the Appellant that there is valid defence available to the insurance company and the insurer is not liable to reimburse the claim on behalf of owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the company has placed on record copy of Roznama and on perusal of Roznama it is apparent that the counsel appearing for the company before the Tribunal caused appearance before the Tribunal only on one occasion and did not take part in the proceeding on the 4 FIRST APPEAL NO.: 2219 OF 2010 subsequent dates. Considering the contentions raised at Bar and on going through the record I am convinced that the interest of the insurance company as well as the claimants can be protected by issuing certain directions. Counsel for the claimants has fairly stated before the Court that if the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the claim petition within six months, the claimants shall not have any objection, however, at the time of remitting the matter back to the Tribunal the claimants shall be paid minimum fifty per cent of the amount of compensation. The course suggested by the counsel for the claimants is acceptable to the learned counsel for the Appellant. In this view of the matter, in order to meet the ends of justice, it will be appropriate to allow the appeal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to extend an opportunity to the insurance company to lead evidence and thereafter proceed to decide the matter in accordance with provisions of law. The counsel for the claimants states that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager considering the income derived by the deceased as well as considering of the age at the time of his 5 FIRST APPEAL NO.: 2219 OF 2010 death. The issue egarding the quantum of compensation shall also be dealt with by the Tribunal after extending opportunity to the Appellant and the Respondent/ claimants. 7. The appeal is, thus, allowed. The judgment and Award passed by the M.A.C.T. on 11th February, 2010 in M.A.C.P. No. 240 of 2008 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for re-consideration. The Tribunal shall, after extending opportunity of leading evidence to the Appellant/ insurance company as well as to the Respondent/ claimants shall proceed to decide the claim application in accordance with the provisions of law and on consideration of the directive issued by this Court in the instant judgment. The amount of Rs.5,73,147/- deposited by the insurance company in this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal, Beed. The Tribunal shall permit the claimants to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the balance amount shall be kept in fixed deposit until disposal of the claim petition. It is needless to mention that appellant/ insurance company as well as owner of the vehicle shall have liberty to file their say/ written statement before the Tribunal. Appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and 6 FIRST APPEAL NO.: 2219 OF 2010 circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [R. M. BORDE, J.] Dated:08/09/2011. ans/2219 7 FIRST APPEAL NO.: 2219 OF 2010 FIRST APPEAL NO.: 2219 OF 2010 Date of decision: 8th SEPTEMBER, 2011. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. BORDE. Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No fair copy of the judgment? Whether this case involves a substantial... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE