THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SHRI VINOD S/O. SAHEBRAO PHEPALE
LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-268
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on November 03,2017

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Thr ... Appellant
VERSUS
Sachin Suresh Bhonde And 3 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.B.SHUKRE,J. - (1.) These three appeals arising from a common judgment dated 10th April, 2006, delivered by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.21/1999, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.285/1998 and Motor Accident Claim Petition No.284/1998 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, " MV Act ") by three different claimants, as injury claims involving same motor vehicle accident, are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) Motor Accident Claim Petition No.21/1999 (First Appeal No.572/2006), Motor Accident Claim Petition No.285/1998 (First Appeal No.575/2006) and Motor Accident Claim Petition No.284/1998 (First Appeal No.576/2006) were respectively filed by Vinod Sahebrao Phepale, Shila Pralhad Chinchole, and Sachin Suresh Bhonde against respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 and the present appellant to claim compensation for the grievous injuries followed by their respective permanent disability suffered by them in an accident involving two motor vehicles. The accident occurred on 14.7.1998 at about 00.30 hours on National Highway No.6 between Amravati and Akola, near village Loni Takli. At that time, all these claimants were travelling by a Tempo Trax vehicle bearing registration No.MH-28/C 399. It was then owned and driven by deceased Vilas Gosavi, husband of respondent No.4 in the appeal. It was insured with present appellant. The accident was the result of a head on collusion between the Tempo Trax vehicle and oncoming truck bearing registration No.MP-21/3299 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 in the present appeal. As a result of the accident, the claimants sustained grievous injuries leading to each of them suffering permanent disability in various percentages. The driver of the Tempo Trax vehicle also sustained grievous injury and died on the spot. He was the husband present respondent No.4. The claimants were admitted to Civil Hospital, Amravati and some time later two of them, Vinod and Sachin were shifted to private hospital while one of them Shila continued to be at Civil Hospital, Amravati as indoor patient. All the three claimants received medical treatment as indoor patients at these hospitals. They incurred substantial expenses towards their medical treatment and simultaneously lost their earnings as well. Shila and Sachin, apart from being students, were also carrying on business of tailoring and real estate. The third claimant Vinod too was a real estate agent. Because of permanent disability, all of them also suffered loss of their income from their respective businesses permanently. In order to seek compensation for such loss suffered by each of the claimants, they filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(3.) The respondent No.2, the owner of the truck, was proceeded against exparte in all the claim petitions. However, insurer of the offending truck respondent No.3, the New India Assurance Company Limited, resisted the claim petitions by filing written statements in each of the claim petitions. It was submitted that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Tempo Trax vehicle and one Police jeep bearing registration No.MH-12/357, which was also involved in the accident. It submitted that since the driver and owner of the Police jeep were not impleaded as party respondents in the claim petitions, the petitions were not maintainable because of want of necessary parties. Alternately, it was submitted by the respondent No.3 that if the driver of the offending truck was found to be negligent, the percentage of his negligence would have to be held as marginal.;


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