THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KHAN MARKET, SHAHI ROAD, LALITPUR, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KANORIA BHAWAN, PALM ROAD, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR Vs. SMT. RAMILABEN WIDOW OF JAYANTILAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION
LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-194
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 12,2017

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Khan Market, Shahi Road, Lalitpur, Through Its Branch Manager, Through Divisional Manager, Kanoria Bhawan, Palm Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Ramilaben Widow Of Jayantilal Patel, Aged About 34 Years, Occupation Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.S. Chandurkar, J. - (1.) The present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short "the said Act "] takes exception to the Award dated 13th February, 2004 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No. 844 of 2002.
(2.) In an accident that occurred on 22nd August, 1999, one Jayantilal, the husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent nos. 2 and 3 expired. Said accident occurred when Jayantilal was riding his two wheeler and was dashed by a truck. The said truck was insured with the appellant herein. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed claim petition under Section 166 of the said Act seeking compensation of Rs.19,42,748-00. This claim was opposed by the appellant. After the parties led evidence, learned Member of the Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,84,225-00. Hence this appeal.
(3.) Shri D. N. Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant, made two-fold submissions : (a) The Claims Tribunal was not justified in taking into consideration the Income Tax Returns that were filed after the death of Jayantilal. It was submitted that the Claims Tribunal took into consideration the Income Tax Return for the year 1999-2000 indicating net income of Rs.1,58,415-00 which return had been filed after the death of Jayantilal. Even otherwise, the average annual income on the basis of income tax returns filed during the lifetime of the victim ought to be taken. This submission was sought to be buttressed by relying upon the law laid down in the following decisions:- (1) V. Subbulakshmi & ors. v. S. Lakshi & another AIR 2008 SC 1256 , (2) Sutinder Pal Singh Arora & ors. v. Ashok Kumar Jain & ors, 2004 ACJ 782 , (3) Suchitra Sinha & ors. v. Baijnath & ors., 2005 (II) ACC 543 , (4) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Gupta & ors., 1996 ACJ 266 , and (5) Seema & ors. v. Rameshchandra & ors. 2007 (IV) ACC 172. (b) The amount of interest from savings of the deceased could not be treated as loss of earning to the members of the family, inasmuch as, by virtue of such investment, the amount of interest continued to be available to the members of the family of the deceased even after death of the victim. In support of said submission, learned counsel placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pramila & ors., 2006 (IV) ACC 114. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.