RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SONI MAHENDRA @ RAJESH NAG
LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-190
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on December 19,2017

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Soni Mahendra @ Rajesh Nag Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Savant, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. "Admit". Since the challenge is only as regards the quantum, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the above First Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith. The above First Appeal and First Appeal No.97 of 2017 are companion Appeals, challenging the same judgment and order dated 18/09/2014.
(2.) The above First Appeal, as indicated above, takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 20/09/2014 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. By the said Judgment and Order, the Claim Petition being MACT Application No.3542 of 2007 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein i.e. the original Applicants came to be partly allowed and the directions as contained in the operative part as regards the payment of the amounts mentioned therein came to be issued.
(3.) The facts giving rise to the above First Appeal can in brief be stated thus : The accident in question took place on 19/10/2007 at about 00.09 hours. The deceased Punuel Suna was a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing No.MH03AE6614 which was driven by his nephew Mahendra Nag. When the motor cycle reached the Western Express Highway near Hub Mall towards Goregaon, the offending truck bearing registration No.MH04F7236 came from Borivali side and was speeding towards Andheri when it dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased in which the deceased and his nephew fell down and both died on the spot. The deceased Punuel Suna was 32 years of age at the time of the accident. He was working as a cameraman in the film industry. He was serving in Bollywood Film Equipments. The Original Applicant No.1 is his wife and the Original Applicant No.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased, the Applicant No.3 is his father and the Applicant No.4 is the mother of the deceased. It was the case of the Applicants in the Claim Petition that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/ per day for 20 to 25 working days in a month. He was a tax payer. The Applicants therefore claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/ as compensation on the death of the deceased on account of the loss of dependency, loss of estate of the deceased, loss of expectation of life and loss of love and affection. It was the case of the Applicants that they were all fully dependent upon the deceased. It seems that the driver of the offending truck was prosecuted by the police. It has come on record that the offending vehicle was owned by the Opposite Party No.1 at the time of accident. It was also insured with the Appellant herein - the Insurance Company. It was therefore the case of the Applicants that the Opposite Party No.1 and the Insurer are both jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Applicants. The Applicants have therefore sought the payment of the amounts claimed by them with 12% interest and other consequential reliefs.;


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