Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Single Bench of Justice Shivkumar Dige, allowed an appeal filed by the claimants and set aside the dismissal of a compensation claim by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur. The Court directed that the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation in the sum of Rs.7,82,800, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization. The Court further directed the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded compensation within eight weeks and permitted the claimants to withdraw the same upon payment of deficit court fees on the enhanced amount.

The matter arose from the death of a woman in an incident that occurred on 3 August 2011, at approximately 4:30 p.m. On the said date, the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle along with her husband and two minor children, aged about three years each. The motorcycle, bearing registration number MH-09/BJ-434, was being ridden by the husband. The deceased was seated as a pillion rider with the two minors also travelling on the same vehicle. While proceeding from Chafodi towards Waghapur, the saree of the deceased became entangled in the rear wheel of the motorcycle, causing the vehicle to skid and all occupants to fall on the road. The deceased sustained head injuries, was shifted to a hospital, but succumbed to her injuries.

Also Read: Supreme Court Warns: ‘No Five-Star Treatment in Jail —or Superintendent Will Be Suspended’"

The appellants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur, contending that the deceased was engaged in the milk business and had been supplying milk to a cooperative society, earning approximately Rs.4,000 per month. They claimed compensation on account of the accidental death. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim petition, holding that there was no accident involving another vehicle and attributing the incident solely to the negligence of the husband of the deceased. The Tribunal further observed that since the claimants had not proved rash or negligent driving, there was no ground to award compensation.

Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim. Counsel for the appellants argued that the incident was clearly accidental in nature as the deceased’s saree had been caught in the chain of the motorcycle, resulting in the fall and death. It was further submitted that the Tribunal had wrongly overlooked the evidence regarding the deceased’s income from the milk business, duly corroborated by the secretary of the milk society and supported by documentary evidence. The appellants sought enhancement of compensation accordingly.

On the other hand, counsel for the Insurance Company contended that four persons were travelling on a motorcycle, which was not permitted under law. It was submitted that the accident was the result of the saree entangling in the motorcycle wheel and was not an accident arising out of the use of the vehicle in the manner contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, it was argued that such carriage of four persons amounted to breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Insurance Company therefore submitted that the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim was proper and required no interference.

The High Court examined the oral and documentary evidence. The claimants had examined claimant no.3, the mother-in-law of the deceased, who testified that the deceased was engaged in the milk business and used to supply milk to Shri Mahadeo Sahakari Dughadh Yavsaik Sanstha, Mandare. She claimed that the deceased earned around Rs.4,000 per month. In cross-examination, no material was elicited to discredit this testimony. Further, PW-2, the Secretary of the cooperative society, was examined and confirmed that the deceased was indeed supplying milk to the society and received about Rs.3,700 to Rs.3,800 per month, supported by milk supply bills produced on record.

Despite this evidence, the Tribunal had not considered the income of the deceased and dismissed the claim. The High Court noted these aspects in detail, including the presence of the insurance policy covering the motorcycle and the inclusion of pillion rider under the coverage.

Justice Shivkumar Dige recorded that the Tribunal had dismissed the claim on the ground that there was no rash and negligent driving. However, the Court observed that the conclusion was incorrect in law. It was stated: “Admittedly at the time of accident, the bike was insured with the Insurance company and the insurance of pillion rider was covered in the said insurance policy.”

The Court further observed: “The term accident is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the Lexis Nexis, ‘Accident’ means, ‘a sudden unforeseen or unexpected event causing harm to a person. In my view, accident includes, collision, over turning or slipping. It is not necessary to have involvement of other vehicle to cause an accident like in present case.”

It was further recorded: “Admittedly, the deceased was going on motorcycle and her saree got entangled in the rear wheel of the motorcycle and she fell on the road. It shows that, the death of the deceased was an accident. At the time of accident, the motorcycle was insured with respondent /Insurance Company. The accident caused due to use of the motorcycle, hence Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.”

On the argument of breach of policy terms by carrying four persons on a motorcycle, the Court observed: “Though four persons were travelling on the bike, but it has come on record that the deceased, her husband and their two minor children around three years of age were travelling with them, so it cannot be considered as breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy.”

With regard to the income, the Court stated: “In my view, it has been proved that the deceased was supplying milk to milk dairy, considering this fact, I am considering Rs.2,000/- as monthly income of the deceased.”

The Court then computed the compensation on the basis of Rs.2,000 monthly income, 40% addition towards future prospects, multiplier of 18, and conventional heads.

Also Read: Delhi HC Restores Rape Charge | False Promise To Marry Despite Known Caste Differences Shows Dishonesty | Continuing Physical Relations Prima Facie Constitutes Rape

Justice Shivkumar Dige issued specific directives upon allowing the appeal. The Court directed: “The appeal is allowed. The claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.7,82,800/- with @7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realisation of the amount.” The Court further ordered: “The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount of compensation along with accrued interest thereon within eight weeks from the receipt of this order.”

The Court directed that: “The claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.” Additionally, it was ordered: “The claimants shall pay deficit court fees on enhanced amount, as per rule.”

Finally, it was directed: “R & P be sent back to the Tribunal. The appeal is disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Avesh Ghadge i/b. Mr. Akshay Shinde, Advocate for the Appellants.

For the Respondents: Ms. Poonam Mital, Advocate

Case Title: Aditya Ramchandra Patil & Ors. versus Yuvraj Bhivaji Patil & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:35275

Case Number: First Appeal No.1370 of 2019

Bench: Justice Shivkumar Dige