LAWS(BOM)-2008-3-312

BOMBAY TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. MADHUKAR BALKRISHNA ANEKAR

Decided On March 25, 2008
Bombay Transport Company Appellant
V/S
Madhukar Balkrishna Anekar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thane on 2/1/1996 in Motor Accident Claim No.399 of 1990. The said claim was allowed partly and the appellants have been jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- including of no fault liability and with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. 3/8/1990. It is admitted that the decretal amount has been deposited with the Tribunal and as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short), an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited with the Registry of this Court which has ben invested in fixed deposit from time to time. The last renewal of the deposit was for an amount of Rs.30,322/-. The appeal is filed jointly and the appellant no.1, who was opponent no.1 in the Tribunal, is the owner of the vehicle and the appellant no.2, who was the opponent no.2 before the Tribunal, is the insurer.

(2.) Devan, son of Shri Madhukar Balkrishna Anekar was crossing the traffic signal near the high way naka close to Nitin Company at about 6 p.m. on 3/2/1990 within the jurisdiction of Naupada Police Station, Thane and while doing so a tanker bearing Registration No.MHT 3178 dashed him and in the said accident he died. Madhukar and his wife Shaila filed MAC Application No.399 of 1990 against the appellants and claimed that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.5000/- per month and, therefore, they were entitled for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. On behalf of the claimants Madhukar stepped in the witness box and also Baliram Karankal, the police constable who was on duty in the highway naka near Nitin Company when the accident had taken place was also examined as a second witness. The owner did not contest the claim but the Insurance company - opponent no.2 filed its Written Statement at Exhibit 10A and contested the claim on various grounds. By considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, as well as the rival submissions made, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the application partly as noted hereinabove. So far as the appeal of the Insurance company is concerned, the same is required to be considered only on limited grounds available under Section 149(2) of the Act as has been held by a three-Judge Bench in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. 524] [(2003) 3 SCC 524]. Their Lordships in para 4 of the said judgment stated thus,

(3.) Mr.Datar, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the depositions of the claimant no.1 - Madhukar and submitted that,