..1.. MACP No.

332/2021 (J)

Presented on 20.02.2021
Registered on 22.02.2021
Decided on 18.04.2024
Duration 3Y 1M 28D

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

MUMBAI
(PRESIDED OVER BY R.V.JAGTAP)

M.A.C.P.No.332 OF 2021 Exh.

1. Mr. Mohan Maruti Sagat, )

Aged about 54 years. )
(Husband of the deceased) )
2. Mr. Mayur Mohan Sagat, )
Aged about 26 years. )
(Son of the deceased) )
3. Mr. Rohit Mohan Sagat, )
Aged about 23 years )
(Son of the deceased) )
All residing at : )
Indira Nagar, Waldhuni, ) … Applicants.
Kalyan East, Kalyan, Thane. )
Maharashtra-421 306. )
)
VERSUS

1 Mr. Raju Santuji Ingale, )

Residing at : )
OT. Sector Bhim Nagar Colony, )
Near Ambedkar Statue, Ulhasnagar, )
Dist. Thane. ) … Opposite
Maharashtra-421 004. ) party.
(Regd. Owner of M/Scooter No.MH-05- )
EG-7417) )
)
And
 ..2.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

2 Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. )

Having their office at : )
N.B. Corporation, Neelkanth Corporate )
Park, 16/517, 5th floor, Kirol Road, )
Vidyavihar Society, Vidyavihar, Mumbai. ) ...Insurer.
Maharashtra-400 086. )
)

Claim Rs.50,00,000/- U/Sec. 166 of M.V.Act

Mr. U.N. Mehta, advocate for Applicants.

Opposite party - exparte
Mr. T. Bendale, advocate for Insurance Company.

JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 18th April, 2024)

Applicants being husband and sons of deceased

Kalavati Mohan Sagat have filed present claim petition U/s.166 of
M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation for her untimely death in
vehicular accident dated 31.12.2020.

2. Brief facts of this application are as under:

On 31.12.2020 at about 10:30 hrs. deceased Kalavati

Sagat was going to her home with proper care and caution and
looking towards the flow of the traffic on the road. When she
reached in front of Samarth Vidyalaya, Valdhuni, Kalyan (W), Dist.
Thane that time Scooter bearing No.MH-05-EG-7417 (hereinafter
referred as offending vehicle) came in high speed, in rash and
negligent manner and took turn towards wrong side and dashed to
the deceased motorcycle from behind. Due to said impact
deceased fell down on road and sustained serious head injury.
After the accident she was removed to LTMG Sion Hospital for
medical treatment. However, during the course of treatment she
 ..3.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

died on 4.1.2021. Applicants have incurred expenses of

Rs.1,00,000/- for her medication. As the aforesaid accident has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of
offending vehicle therefore offence came to be registered against
him with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police station vide FIR
No.11/2021.

3. It is the contention of the applicants that at the time of

the accident deceased was 48 years old having robust health. In
ordinary course she would have lived a long span of happy life.
She was rendering valuable services to the applicants and the
beneficiaries who have been deprived of the source of maintenance
support and service and have also suffered loss of expectation of
life. She was subjected to severe pain and suffering at the time of
her death. At the time of accident opposite party was owner of the
vehicle and same was insured with the insurer. Moreover, the
person who was driving said vehicle was driving it as a Servant
and/or agent and/or on behalf of owner and/or with his
permission. In any event the owner had control over the vehicle at
the relevant time. Therefore, both opposite party and insurer are
liable to pay compensation to the applicants. In the instant
application, applicants have claimed compensation to the tune of
Rs.50 lakhs with interest from the date of application. Thus,
applicants prayed for allowing this application.

4. Opposite party though served failed to appear in this

matter. Hence, matter proceeded ex-parte against it and order to
that effect came to be passed below Ex.1 on 2.5.2023.

5. Insurance company resisted the claim of applicants by

filing its written statement vide Ex.15. Except admitting that the
 ..4.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

offending vehicle was duly insured with it for the period 22.2.2020
to 21.5.2025, it denied all other contents putforth in this
application. It is the contention of Insurer that the applicants have
completely failed to disclose as to how and in which manner
insurer is a necessary party to this application for grant of
compensation. Moreover, the person driving the vehicle has no
relation in force as on the date of accident to drive the vehicle. The
driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective
driving licence at the time of the accident. Moreover, was not
qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence. Further, he
has not satisfied the requirement of Rule 3 of Central Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is a clear breach of terms and conditions of
the policy issued by the insurer. Therefore, it is not liable to pay
any compensation to the applicants. If any liability is saddled the
same may be saddled on the opposite party alone. Opposite party
handed over the possession of the vehicle to said driver and
thereby contravened the provision of Motor Vehicles Act and rules
framed there under. The particulars of the driving licence are
within special knowledge of opposite party, therefore it is
necessary to direct it to produce copy of driving licence, permit and
fitness of the offending vehicle. It is the contention of the insurer
that the deceased drove her motorcycle rashly and negligently and
dashed to scooter bearing No.MH-05-EG-7417 and thereby
responsible for the accident. She was driving her vehicle without
observing traffic rules and regulations and contributed for causing
said accident. Therefore, she being tort feasor, applicants are not
entitled to claim any compensation from respondent. In the
alternative it is contended that contributory negligence on the part
of the deceased is required to be considered on greater side.
Moreover, application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,
 ..5.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

as the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased has
not been impleaded in this matter. It seeks protection u/s.147 and
150 of M.V. Act.

6. It is the contention of the insurer that as per Sec.134

(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, it is mandatory duty of the person in
charge of vehicle to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and
place of accident, particulars of injured, name of the driver and
particulars of driving licence but the owner of the insured vehicle
has failed to comply with said statutory demand. Likewise, as per
Sec.158(6) of M.V. Act, it is mandatory for the concerned police
station to forward all relevant documents to the insurer within 30
days from the date of information. However, the concerned police
station failed to comply with said statutory demand. Moreover, the
interest claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and contrary
to Sec.3 of Interest Act, 1978. Moreover, the compensation granted
on account of forthcoming prospects should be excluded from the
interest penalty. It should not be beyond Sec.34 of Code of Civil
Procedure which is a Central Legislation and supersedes all rules.
Moreover, the insurer is not liable to pay interest on non-
pecuniary damages. Moreover, future prospects should not be
granted as multiplier method itself take care of the future prospect
and there shall be no interest liability imposed on the insurer for
future expenditure of any nature. Thus, it prayed for dismissal of
this application.

7. Considering the rival pleadings of the parties, I have

framed following issues vide Exh.16 and record my findings
thereon for the reasons given below.
 ..6.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

Sr. Issues Findings

No.
1. Do petitioners prove that accident took place
on 31.12.2020 due to rash and negligent … Yes.
driving of Motor Vehicle (MH-05-EG-7417) ?
2. Do petitioners prove that deceased Kalavati
Mohan Sagat died due to injuries sustained in … Yes.
said vehicular accident ?
3. Does Insurer prove that petition is bad for … No.
non-joinder of necessary parties as claimed ?
4. Does Insurer prove that there is breach of … Yes.
terms and conditions of Insurance Policy?
5. Do petitioners are entitled for amount of … Yes, as per
compensation from opponents ? If yes, what final order.
amount ?
6. What order and award? … As per final
order.

REASONS
8. To substantiate their claim on behalf of applicants,
applicant No.1 and 2 have filed their affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief vide Ex.20 and Ex.29 respectively as AW1
and AW2. They also examined Raoji Ramchandra Desai to prove
her medical papers as AW3 vide Ex.36. Applicants closed their
evidence by filing pursis vide Ex.42.

9. Apart from oral evidence applicants took recourse of

several documents. Those documents are final report U/s.173 of
Code of Criminal Procedure Ex.21, FIR Ex.22, statement of
informant Ex.23, inquest panchnama Ex.24, statement of
applicant No.2 Mayur Ex.25, Cause of Death certificate Ex.26,
Crime Detail form Ex.27, Insurance policy of offending vehicle
Ex.28 and medical papers Ex.40.
 ..7.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

10. On behalf of Insurer Bhausaheb Shivaji Yadav filed his

affidavit in lieu of examination in chief vide Ex.46. Insurer closed
its evidence by filing pursis vide Ex.48. Insurer also placed on
record copy of Insurance policy along with terms and conditions
Ex.47.

11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants

and Insurer at length. Perused notes of arguments placed on
record by them vide Ex.50 and Ex.53 respectively.

As to Issue Nos.1 to 6:

12. As all the issues are interlinked therefore, to avoid

repetition of discussion they are taken up collectively for
adjudication.

13. In the instant case applicants have contended that they

are entitled for compensation of Rs.50 lakhs with interest for
untimely death of deceased in vehicular accident. In such type of
cases the initial burden is on the applicants to prove that at the
relevant time of the accident driver of offending vehicle driving it
in rash and negligent manner and responsible for the accident,
injuries sustained to the deceased and her untimely death.
Therefore, it has become necessary to see whether applicants have
succeeded to discharge their initial burden or not.

14. The learned counsel appearing for applicants in his

oral submissions as well as written notes of arguments reiterated
almost identical facts as appearing in the application in respect of
occurrence of accident. It is submitted that at the relevant time of
the accident offending vehicle came in excessive speed, in rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the deceased from behind. Due to
 ..8.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

it she fell down and sustained serious injuries. She was taken to
Sion Hospital but succumbed to her injuries on 4.1.2021. Thus, the
rider of the offending vehicle is responsible for the accident.
Therefore, criminal case registered against him. Police papers
indicate all these facts. At the time of the accident deceased was 48
years old. She was conducting canteen at Railway and was earning
Rs.30,000/- p.m. Therefore, applicants are entitled to claim
compensation from the opposite party and insurance company
being owner and insurer. He calculated compensation for which
the applicants are entitled for to the tune of Rs.50,22,000/-. He
took recourse of following authorities :

 National Insurance company Ltd. V/s. Pranay Sethi & ors.

2017 ACJ 2700

 Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
2009 ACJ 1298

 Reshma Kumari & Ors. V/s. Madan Mohan & Anr. 2013 ACJ
1253

 Sakharibai Hasanali Makani & Ors. V/s. Girish Kumar

Rupchand Gadia & Ors 1997 ACJ 95.

 Ramsumer Habai Yadao V/s. State of Maharashtra 1981 ACJ

460

 N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. V/s. M. Karumai Ammal & Ors. 1980
ACJ 435.

 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Sangeeta Dattatray

Jamdade & Ors. 2006 ACJ 971
 ..9.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

 Lata Wadhwa & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. 2001 ACJ
1735

 Veena Aggarwal & Ors. V/s. Indarjeet Pandey & Ors. 2004
ACJ 1831

 Nagappa V/s. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. 2003 ACJ 12

 Hemant Kashinath Wadke V/s. Patheja Forging & Auto

Parts Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2005 ACJ 1202

 National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Prembai Patel & Ors. 2005
ACJ 1323.

 Aarti Bezbaruah V/s. Dy. Director General, Geological

Survey of India & Anr. 2003 ACJ 680

 Bimla Devi & Ors. V/s. Satbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC
345

 Sunita & Ors. V/s. Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 486

15. In the aforesaid authorities the Hon’ble Apex Court as

well as the Hon’ble High Courts laid down the principle to be
followed while adjudicating claim filed for compensation in a case
of injury or death due to vehicular accident. Initial two judgments
are the landmark judgments providing valuable guidance to courts
all over India to adjudicate such type of disputes. It laid down the
principles in that regard. Moreover, in the other judgment it has
been specifically observed that the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur is
applicable in such cases. Moreover, while assessing compensation
the multiplier method needs to be applied. If the owner and driver
failed to appear then adverse inference needs to be drawn against
 ..10.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

them. It is also guided as to how the notional income of the victim

of the accident is to be adjudicated. Thus, the authorities provide
valuable guidance to adjudicate the dispute and meet the ends of
justice.

16. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the

Insurer in his oral as well as written notes of arguments
specifically contended that at the relevant time of the accident
deceased was pedestrian. She was dashed by the two wheeler.
However, the documents placed on record indicate that the history
given in hospital was as “the injuries sustained to the applicant due
to road traffic accident as she fall from bike”. Moreover, she was
suffering from degenerative complete heart block due to which she
died. She has not been died due to accidental injuries. Moreover,
there is nothing on record to show that the rider of the offending
vehicle was rash and negligent at the relevant time of the accident.
It is for the applicant to establish on record that the rider of the
offending vehicle was negligent and responsible for the accident
and the death of deceased is result of accidental injuries. However,
no cogent evidence is placed on record to prove this factum.
Moreover, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding vehicle
at the time of the accident. Therefore, insurer is not liable to pay
any compensation to the applicants.

17. He took recourse of following authorities :

 Anil & Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Co. & Ors. in C.A.
No.3291-3292/2011 dated 19.1.2018.

In this authority the Honb’le Apex court observed that the tribunal
failed to notice crucial aspect of the case which have a bearing on
the question as to whether the death of deceased was caused a
 ..11.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

result of accident caused by a tractor.

 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Manisha Lahu

Kale & Ors. In F.A. 27/42 of 2015.

In this authority the Hon’ble Parent High Court observed that

initial burden always line on the claimant to establish claim by
bringing oral and documentary evidence on record in support of
his claim.

18. He also took recourse of the authorities between

Mrs. Anita Singh V/s. Directorate of Health Services GNCTD in
CIC/SA/A/2015/001894 dated 16.3.2016 and Prabhat Kumar V/s.
Directorate of Health Services CIC/SA/A/2014/000004 dated
3.2.2015. In these matters the Central Information Commission
held that in absence of any immunity either under the regulations
or under any other law, the respondent hospital is bound to give
photocopies of the entire documents of the patient, if any request
to that effect has been made either by patient, authorised
attendant or legal authorities involved.

19. Considering the rival submissions of the parties now it

is necessary to look into oral evidence adduced on record to
ascertain who is responsible for the occurrence of said accident.
AW1 Mohan Sagat, husband of deceased in his evidence reiterated
almost identical facts as appearing in their application. He further
stated that his wife was admitted in LTMG Hospital since
31.12.2020 to 4.1.2020 when she succumbed to the injuries. In his
cross examination he goes to say that he has not witnessed the
occurrence of accident. He learnt about it from his son who
initially received information. After accident his wife was shifted to
Godbole Hospital at Kalyan. He told there that his wife met with
 ..12.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

accident. He voluntarily stated that initially his wife was taken to

Municipal Hospital from where intimation was given to the police
station and then they shifted injured to Godbole Hospital. He fairly
stated that he is unable to state who was at fault for occurrence of
said accident as he did not witness the same.

20. AW2 Mayur Mohan Sagat son of deceased in his

evidence deposed that on the day of accident his mother was going
to home with proper care and caution. That time offending vehicle
came in high speed, in rash and negligent manner, took turn to the
wrong side and dashed to his mother. Due to it she fell down and
sustained serious head injuries. So far her hospitalisation, he also
reiterated same facts as stated by AW1. In his cross examination
he also admitted that he has not witnessed the occurrence of
accident nor placed on record any document to show that he
lodged report with police alleging that the offending vehicle
dashed to his mother on 21.12.2020.

21. It is pertinent to note that in the first paragraph of his

affidavit, AW2 mentioned the date of accident as 21.12.2020,
however, in following paragraph he stated correct date of accident.
Merely mentioning wrong date in paragraph No.1 does not bring
his entire testimony under the cloud of suspicion. It is pertinent to
note that both AW1 and AW2 in their respective evidence
specifically deposed that the accident has taken place due to rash
and negligence riding of the rider of the offending vehicle.

22. The Insurance company examined its Assistant

Manager – Legal Claim namely Bhausaheb Shivaji Yadav who
deposed that the vehicle was duly insured with their company.
The medical papers placed on record indicates that the opinion in
 ..13.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

respect of cause of death of the deceased was reserved. The

deceased was admitted in Cardiology Ward and not in Orthopaedic
Ward. Moreover, the history given in the hospital was of
trauma/injury due to RTA fall from bike. Injured was diagnosed as
complete heart block. For that purpose she was admitted in
Cardiology Department. Said disease was not due to accidental
injuries. Moreover, the rider of offending vehicle is charged with
Sec.3 r/w sec.181 of M.V. Act as he was not holding valid and
effective driving licence at the relevant time of the accident.
Therefore, as it is a breach of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy it is not liable to indemnify the insured.
Moreover, no income proof is placed on record by the applicants.
Both sons of deceased are major and were not dependent on her.
In his cross examination he expressed his inability to state whether
the company has sent any notice as per the terms and conditions of
the policy to the insured after receipt of summons of this petition
or not. Their company has not issued any letter to the concerned
police station informing that false case filed against the insured
vehicle. He further expressed his inability to state that the contents
of his affidavit are not mentioned in their written statement as its
copy is not in their file.

23. Considering the evidence of both the parties, it can be

said that the occurrence of accident has not been disputed so
strenuously. No doubt Insurer raised objection in respect of date of
occurrence of accident on the basis of date mentioned in paragraph
No.1 of the affidavit of AW2. However, as mentioned earlier it just
appear to be a typographical error. In following para AW2 gave
the correct date of accident. It is pertinent to note that neither
AW1 and AW2 nor DW1 had seen the occurrence of accident.
 ..14.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

Their version is based on the information received to them from

the police papers. Therefore, it is necessary to look into the police
papers. As per final report Ex.21 chargesheet, which came to be
filed against rider of the offending vehicle namely Prakash
Rambhau Upade for the offences punishable U/s.279, 304A, 337,
338 of IPC and U/s.184 , 3/181 of M.V. Act, it appears that it has
been alleged that on the relevant date of accident he rode his
Activa motorcycle in rash and negligent manner overlooking the
traffic rules and gave dash to deceased Kalavati who was walking
towards Samarth Vidyalaya from Ambedkar Chowk thereby
responsible for the accident and her untimely death. FIR Ex.22
also depicts same fact. The informant Suresh Baban Padwal, ASI in
his information alleged that in said accident deceased sustained
injury to her both leg and chest. Initially she was taken to
Rukminibai Hospital. Both motorcycle rider and the son of
deceased met them at hospital. Then she was discharged from the
hospital. However, as she felt uneasy at home therefore, she was
taken to Godbole hospital. As the expenditure assessed by said
hospital was very high they took her to Sion hospital where she
died on 4.1.2021 when under medication.

24. It is pertinent to note that as per information the

informant received information about the accident on the very day
of its occurrence. The spot panchnama Ex.27 indicates that the
accident has taken place on the road runs in front of Samarth
Vidyalay. Inquest panchnama indicates that the injury such as
abrasion on right hand and stitches were applied below left knee.
Cause of death certificate depict that the opinion in respect of
cause of death has been reserved. The police papers clearly
indicates that at the relevant time of the accident deceased was
 ..15.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

walking towards Samarth Vidyalaya that time rider of offending

vehicle gave dash to her. It is specifically alleged that at the
relevant time of the accident he was riding his vehicle recklessly, in
rash and negligent manner and responsible for the accident. It is
cardinal principle that the person who was riding or driving the
vehicle was having responsibility to take care of the flow of traffic
and pedestrian of the road. In the instant case it appears that the
rider of the offending vehicle has not taken due care and caution
and responsible for the accident.

25. It is pertinent to note that the main stress of the

insurance company is on the point that the death of deceased was
not outcome of the accidental injuries. She was hospitalized in
Cardiology department and diagnosed complete heart block. AW3
Ravji Desai in his evidence deposed that as per the witness
summons he appeared before Tribunal along with original IPD,
medical treatment papers and discharge summary of Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai Sion Hospital of deceased Kalavati
Sagat. He prove those papers filed along with list Ex.35 marked as
Ex.40 colly. DW1 also took recourse of those papers for pressing
its defence that there is no connection between the death of the
deceased and accidental injuries.

26. Here, it is pertinent to note that as per FIR itself

deceased has sustained injury to her both legs and chest in said
accident. Initially she was treated at Municipal Hospital and
allowed to go home. However, as she felt uneasy therefore, she
was taken to Gobdole hospital and from there to Sion Hospital
where it revealed that her heart is completely blocked. It is
pertinent to note that she had sustained injury to her chest. May
be the gravity of her chest injury was not ascertained or looked
 ..16.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

into at initial treating centre. However, within few hours due to her
health condition she has been shifted to LTMG Hospital where
requisite faculties are available. Then only gravity of her chest
injury came forward and she was admitted in Cardiology
department. Therefore considering the recital of FIR and the
subsequent finding in the hospital cannot be separated from each
other. On the contrary it can be gathered that her complete heart
blockage is the direct nexus with the chest injury sustained by her
in said accident. Considering all these facts it can be easily
extracted that the accident has taken place due to rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the offending motor scooter in
which deceased sustained injury to her leg and chest and due to
impact of chest injury she died on 4.1.2021. Therefore, there is no
force in the objection put forth by Insurer in this regard.

27. Now the question is for how much compensation

applicants are entitled for. As per applicants deceased was
conducting Canteen at Railway and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m.
AW1 Mohan Sagat, husband of deceased in his evidence reiterated
same fact. In his cross examination he admitted that even prior to
accident he was running canteen and today also he is doing same
business. He has not placed any document on record to show
income of his deceased wife. He further admitted that his sons are
major and physically and mentally fit. They do not have any
deformity. AW2 son of deceased also in his evidence reiterated
same facts. He also admitted that he as well as his brother do not
have any physical or mental deformity. They have not placed on
record any document to show that his mother was earning
Rs.30,000/- p.m. towards salary.
 ..17.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

28. On this premise on perusal of statement of Mayur

Sagat Ex.25 it appears that at the time of accident his mother had
been to market to purchase vegetables. This witness who happened
to be son of deceased in his statement before police nowhere
mentioned that his mother was running canteen. No documentary
evidence except the bare words of AW1 and AW2 is placed on
record to show the vocation and income of the deceased. No doubt
AW1 in his cross examination admitted that he was indulged in
canteen business and even continued with it after the accident.
Therefore, the indulgence of AW1 as well as AW2 in any business
does not amount that the deceased was also involved in those
businesses. Therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence there is
no alternative then to assess the notional income of the deceased.

29. Considering the fact that deceased was looking

towards household work, if her notional income is assumed to the
extent of Rs.8,000/- p.m. then it will be just and proper. As per
police papers and medical record the age of deceased is 48 years.
Therefore, as per the preposition given in Pranay Sethi & Sarla
Verma’s case it is necessary to add 25% in her aforesaid income.
Moreover, as her family consist applicants in all 3 members, it is
necessary to deduct 1/3rd from her aforesaid income towards
personal expenses and as she fell in the age band of 46-50 years
multiplier of 13 needs to be applied. Thus, the loss sustained to the
family of the deceased due to her untimely demise comes to
Rs.10,40,000/- (Rs.8,000/- + 25% x 12 less 1/3rd x 13).
Applicants are entitled to claim said amount under the head of loss
of dependency.

30. Due to untimely death of deceased applicant No.1 lost

the company of his beloved wife as well as applicant Nos.2 and 3
 ..18.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

lost the love and affection and guidance of their beloved mother.
Therefore, they are entitled for spousal and parental consortium.
Therefore, I have no hesitation to say that applicants each are
entitled for Rs.40,000/- with 20% addition therein under the head
of consortium. Thus, they are entitled for Rs.48,000/- each.

31. Apart from it applicants are also entitled to claim

Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses with
20% addition therein. Thus, applicants are entitled for Rs.18,000/-
each under heads of loss of estate and funeral expense.

32. Thus, I have no hesitation to say that applicants are

entitled for following compensation :

Sr. No Particulars Amount.

1. Loss of dependency Rs.10,40,000/-
2. Consortium (48,000 x 3) Rs.1,44,000/-
3. Loss of estate (15,000+20%) Rs.18,000/-
4. Funeral expenses (15,000+20%) Rs.18,000/-
Total Rs.12,20,000/-

33. As per police papers particularly chargesheet Ex.21 it

appears that rider of scooter namely Prakash Upade was not
holding valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time of
the accident therefore, along with other IPC section he is charged
for the offences punishable u/s.3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. No
evidence is placed on record on behalf of applicants to show that
he is wrongly prosecuted for said offences. Considering these
aspects, it can be said that the owner of the offending vehicle
handed over said vehicle to the person who was not having valid
and effective driving licence. It is a clear cut breach of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, insurance company
 ..19.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence Opposite party being

owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay aforesaid
compensation to the applicants with interest @ 7% p.a. from the
date of application till realisation of entire compensation.
However, considering the fact that the vehicle is duly insured with
the insurer and the deceased is a third party to it and considering
the beneficial nature of the enactment it is prudent to direct
insurer to pay compensation initially if the owner failed to pay it
within stipulated time and then may recover it from the owner.
Hence, I answer all the issues accordingly.

In the result I proceed to pass following order :

ORDER
1) Application is hereby partly allowed with proportionate
costs.
2) Opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.12,20,000/- (Rupees
Twelve Lakhs Twenty Thousand only), inclusive of NFL, if any, to
the applicants as a just compensation with future interest @ 7%
p.a. from the date of application till realisation of entire amount
within 6 weeks from the date of this order.
3) On failure of Opposite party to deposit aforesaid
compensation within stipulated period, Insurer shall pay initially
the aforesaid compensation and then may recover it from the
Opposite party.
4) Opposite party and/ or the Insurer is directed to deposit the
award sum to the credit of the bank account of this Tribunal
directly by NEFT/RTGS mode. The details of the bank account of
this Tribunal are as under :
 ..20.. MACP No.332/2021 (J)

Account Name : Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mumbai

Account No. : 00000040777482356
IFS Code : SBIN0030002
MICR Code : 400002273
5) The details of deposit be informed to the Tribunal on its
e-mail address.
6) Apportionment order is as under :
 50% compensation along with accrued interest be
disbursed in the name of applicant No.1 by way of
NEFT/RTGS.
 25% each of the compensation along with accrued
interest be be disbursed in the name of applicant
Nos.2 and 3 by way of NEFT/RTGS.

7) Accounts Officer to make the payment to the applicants as

apportioned above, after due identification and verification, as per
rules.

8) Applicants to pay deficit court fees, if any. Thereafter, award

be drawn up accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) Digitally signed by
RAMJI RAMJI VITHAL
VITHAL JAGTAP
Date: 2024.05.02
JAGTAP 15:53:29 +0530

(R.V.Jagtap)
Date: 18/04/2024. Member,C.R.No.3
MACT, Mumbai