Bombay High Court
The New India Assurance Company Kalyan ... vs Suresh Dhondu Dhanake And Ors. on 21 July, 2025
Author: Shivkumar Dige
Bench: Shivkumar Dige
2025:BHC-AS:34399
49-FA(ST)-21727-2023-JUDG.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.21727 OF 2023
The New India Assurance Company }
Kalyan Division Office near Poorinma }
Theater, Murbad Road, Kalyan District }
Thane Insurer of the offending jeep vide }
Certificate/cover note No.46678, valid for }
the period 5/1/2000 to 24/01/2001, Thr. TP }
Hub, Ground Floor, M.G. Road, }
Mumbai-400001 } ...Appellant
Digitally signed
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2025.08.11
17:43:48 +0530
Versus
1. Suresh Dhondu Dhanake }
Age-87 years, Occ: Agriculture }
2. Manabai Suresh Dhanake }
Age-82 years, Occ: Homemaker }
Both R/at Kadam Pada, Post-Balegaon, }
Taluka-Murbad, District-Thane. }
3. Mr.Laxman Ramchandra Utekar }
R/at Ravadi (Ambadi) Post Dishashi, }
Taluka-Bhiwandi, District-Thane, }
Ower of the offending Jeep as per RTO }
Information) }
4. Mr.Shirish Laxman Gharat }
R/at Vaishakhare, Taluka-Murbad, District- }
Thane, (Owner of offending jeep as per }
agreement) }
N.S. Kamble page 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 21:36:47 :::
49-FA(ST)-21727-2023-JUDG.doc
5. Mr.Vasant Mukund Humane }
R/at Shai, Taluka-Murbad, District-Thane }
(Driver of offending jeep) }
6. Mr.Nandakukmar Haribhau Pathare }
R/at Khusal, Taluka-Murbad, District-Thane }
(Certified owner of the offending jeep) } ...Respondents
----
Ms.Poonam Mital, for the Appellant.
Ms.Ketki Gokhale i/b Mr.A.M. Gokhale, for Respondent Nos.1
and 2.
----
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 21st JULY 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('The Tribunal' for short), Kalyan.
2. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company that, at the time of the accident, deceased was 15 years old. The Tribunal has awarded compensation on higher side of Rs.5,50,600/- and the Claimants claimed for Rs.90,000/- only. The learned counsel further submitted that, at the time of the accident, Insurance Policy was not valid. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.
N.S. Kamble page 2 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 21:36:47 ::: 49-FA(ST)-21727-2023-JUDG.doc
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant that, the Tribunal has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to dismiss the Appeal.
4. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('The Tribunal' for short), Kalyan.
5. While dealing with the issue of validity of the Insurance Policy, the Tribunal has observed that the Appellant has examined Anjali Karane, the Assistant Manager of Insurance Company. She has admitted in cross-examination that their Office had appointed the Investigator and the Investigator has submitted his report to their company, it shows cover note No.46651 to 466700 were issued to Development Officer Mr.Dilip Walke on 18th September 2001. The said report was not produced on record. Considering the fact that cover note issued to Development Officer and investigation report was not produced on record, the Tribunal has held that, at the time of the accident, the Insurance Policy was valid. I do not find infirmity N.S. Kamble page 3 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 21:36:47 ::: 49-FA(ST)-21727-2023-JUDG.doc in it. In my view, it is settled principle of law that, if any party takes plea, it has to be proved by the cogent evidence. The investigation report is not produced on record, to prove that insurance policy was not issued to offending vehicle. Hence, I do not find merit in contention that, at the time of accident it was not covered with insurance.
6. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 15 years old, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,50,600/- as compensation @ 6% per annum. As per view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi V/s. Nanu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors.1, if the deceased was below 15 years old, the claimants are entitled for Rs.5 lakhs compensation @ 7.5% interest per annum.
7. In view of above, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The Claimants are entitled for Rs.5 lakhs @ 7.5% interest from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.
1 (2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1040) N.S. Kamble page 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 21:36:47 ::: 49-FA(ST)-21727-2023-JUDG.doc
(iii) The Respondent-Insurance Company shall withdraw excess amount of Rs.50,600 from the deposited amount with proportionate interest.
(iv) The delay of one year and 39 days for filing the Appeal is condoned and Appeal be registered for statistical purpose.
(v) The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal. Parties are at liberty to withdraw it.
(vi) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.
(vii) All pending Civil/Interim Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
N.S. Kamble page 5 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 21:36:47 :::