-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF , DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 01 ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

M.F.A. NO.24487/2011 C/W 23229/2011, 23230/2011, 23231/2011, 23738/2011, 23739/2011 AND 23740/2011 (MV)

IN MFA NO.24487 OF 2011

BETWEEN

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO.3, 1477/78, MANTUNG BUILDING, MADHAV NAGAR ROAD, NEAR DURGA MATA MANDIR, SANGALI-416416, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE VICE PRESIDENT, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., AFL HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, LOKBHARTI COMPLEX, MAROL MAROSHI ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI ...APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVINDRA R MANE, ADV. )

AND

1 . SHRI. PRASAD S/O ASHOK LOHAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: MASON, R/O VILLAGE, TQ. and DIST.

2 . SHRI. PARASHARAM NAGO NAIK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 459, NEAR MAULI SOCIETY, DESUR VILLAGE, TQ. and DIST. BELGAUM

-2-

(OWNER OF BAJAJ DISCOVER MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-22/ED-1464)

3 . SHRI. MANOHAR IRAPPA SULEBHAVIKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KATAGALI, POST. , TQ. , DIST. BELGAUM (OWNER OF THE MAHINDRA SCOMMANDER JEEP BEARING NO. KA-22/M-2378)

4 . UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O. 1568, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM POLICY NO.240181/31/09/02/00004359 VALIDITY FROM 26/03/2010 TO 25/03/2011

(INSURER OF MAHINDRA COMMANDER JEEP BEARING NO. KA-22/M-2378). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISH S MAIGUR, ADV. FOR R1 RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 SD/ SRI M.K.SOUDAGAR ADV. FOR R-4.)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1339/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II AND MEMBER, ADDL.MACT, BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,44,200/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A.,FROM THE DATE PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

IN MFA NO. 23229 OF 2011

BETWEEN

1 . SHRI. CHANDRAKANT JAYAWANT BELGAONKAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O YELLUR, TQ. BELGAUM

2 . SMT. REKHA @ RENUKA CHANDRAKANT BELGAONKAR AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

-3-

R/O YELLUR, TQ. BELGAUM ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADV.)

AND 1 . SHRI. MANOHAR IRAPPA SULEBHAVIKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KATAGALI, POST. RAMGURWADI TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELGAUM.

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O 1568, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM

3 . SHRI. PARASHARAM NAGO NAIK AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 459, NEAR MAULI SOCIETY, DESUR VILLAGE, TQ. BELGAUM.

4 . IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO. 3, 1477/78, MATUNG BUILDING, MADHAV NAGAR ROAD, NEAR DURGA MATA MANDIR, SANGLI-416416.

RESPONDETNS (BY SRI M.K.SOUDAGAR ADV. FOR R2. SRI R.B. PASAPPAGOL ADV. FOR R3. SRI R.R.MANE, ADV. FOR R-4. RESPDT NO.1 SD.)

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1338/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO.23230 OF 2011

BETWEEN SHRI. PRASAD S/O ASHOK LOHAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: MASON, PRESENTLY-NIL,

-4-

R/O DESUR VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BELGAUM

...APPELLANT (BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADV.)

AND

1 . SHRI. MANOHAR IRAPPA SULEBHAVIKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KATAGALI, POST. RAMGURWADI, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELGAUM.

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O. 1568, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM.

3 . SHRI. PARASHARAM NAGO NAIK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 459, NEAR MAULI SOCIETY, DESUR VILLAGE, TQ. BELGAUM

4 . IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO. 3, 1477/78, MANTUNG BUILDING, MADHAV NAGAR ROAD, NEAR DURGA MATA MANDIR, SANGLI-416 416.

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.R.MANE, ADV. FOR R-2 SRI RAJENDRA V.DESAI, ADV. FOR R3 SRI M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R4. RESPONDENT NO.1 SD.)

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF M.V.ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.04.2011, PASSED IN MVC NO. 1339/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II AND ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO.23231 OF 2011

BETWEEN SHRI. YALLAPPA S/O NAGO NAIK AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: MASON,

-5-

PRESENTLY-NIL, R/O DESUR VILLAGE, TQ. and DIST. BELGAUM ...APPELLANT (BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADV.)

AND 1 . SHRI. MANOHAR IRAPPA SULEBHAVIKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KATAGALI, POST. RAMGURWADI, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELGAUM.

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O. 1568, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM

3 . SHRI. PARASHARAM NAGO NAIK AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 459, NEAR MAULI SOCIETY, DESUR VILLAGE, TQ. BELGAUM

4 . IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO. 3, 1477/78, MANTUNG BUILDING, MADHAV NAGAR ROAD, NEAR DURGA MATA MANDIR, SANGLI -416 416.

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R2. SRI R.R.MANE ADV. FOR R4. RESPDT NO.3 S/H/S RESPDT NO.1. SD.)

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC. OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1407/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

-6-

IN MFA NO.23738 OF 2011

BETWEEN

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM. NOW REP. BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA I NSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADV.)

AND 1 . SHRI. CHANDRAKANT JAYAWANT BELGAONKAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O YELLUR, TQ. and DIST. BELGAUM

2 . SMT. REKHA ] @ RENUKA CHANDRAKANT BELGAONKAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O YELLUR, TQ. and DIST. BELGAUM

3 . SHRI. MANOHAR IRAPPA SULEBHAVIKAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KATAGALI, POST. RAMGURWADI, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELGAUM.

4 . SHRI. PARASHARAM NAGO NAIK AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/0 459, NEAR MAULI SOCIETY, DESUR VILLAGE, TQ. BELGAUM.

5 . IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO. 3, 1477/78, MANTUNG BUILDING, MADHAV NAGAR ROAD, NEAR DURGA MATA MANDIR, SANGLI-416 416

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISH S MAIGUR FOR R1 and R2 SRI RAJANANDA LATKHAN ADV. FOR R-3. SRI SANTOSH S. BABAJI, ADV. FOR R-4 SRI R.R. MANE ADV. FOR R5. )

-7-

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1338/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK-II AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,84,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

IN MFA NO.23739 OF 2011

BETWEEN UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM. NOW REP. BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADV.)

AND 1 . PRASAD S/O ASHOK LOHAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: MASON, PRESENTLY-NIL R/O DESUR, TQ. and DIST. BELGAUM

2 . SHRI. MANOHAR IRAPPA SULEBHAVIKAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KATAGALI, POST. RAMGURWADI, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELGAUM

3 . SHRI. PARASHARAM NAGO NAIK AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/0 459, NEAR MAULI SOCIETY, DESUR VILLAGE, TQ. BELGAUM

4 . IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO. 3, 1477/78, MANTUNG BUILDING, MADHAV NAGAR ROAD, NEAR DURGA MATA MANDIR, SANGLI -416 416.

RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RAJANANDA LATKHAN ADV. FOR R2 SRI R.R. MANCE ADV. FOR R-4. RESPDTS 1 AND 2 ARE SERVED.)

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

-8-

30.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1339/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.91,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

IN MFA NO. 23740 OF 2011

BETWEEN

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM. NOW REP. BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADV.)

AND 1 . YALLAPPA S/O. NAGO NAIK, AGE: 23 YRS, OCC: MASON PRESENTLY NILL, R/O: DESUR, TQ: BELGAUM.DIST: BELGAUM.

2 . SHRI. MANOHAR IRAPPA SULEBHAVIKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KATAGALI, POST: RAMGURWADI, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.

3 . SHRI. PARASHARAM NAGO NAIK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 459, NEAR MAULI SOCIETY,DESUR VILLAGE, TQ and DIST: BELGAUM.

4 . IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., UNIT NO.3, 1477/78, MANTUNG BUILDING, MADHAV NAGAR ROAD, NEAR DURGA MATAMANDIR, SANGALI - 416416. …RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1407/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACT COURT-II AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,22,100/- WITH INTEREST AT THE

-9-

RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Though these cases are listed for orders today, with the consent of both the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. MFA No.24487/2011 is filed by the Insurance Company of the motor-cycle bearing No.KA-22-ED-1464 questioning the liability insofar as the second pillion rider is concerned. MFA

Nos.23229/2011, 23230/2011 and 23231/2011 are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. MFA Nos.23738/2011, 23739/2011 and 23740/2011 are filed by the Insurer of the United India Insurance Company who had insured the jeep bearing No.KA-22-M-2378 on the ground of liability as well as quantum of compensation.

4. MVC No.1338/2010 is filed by parents of one of the pillion-riders who were traveling on the motor-cycle bearing

No.KA-22-ED-1464 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles

Act seeking compensation for the accidental injuries sustained

-10-

by them. Whereas MVC No.1407/2010 is filed by the rider of the motor-cycle bearing No. KA-22/ED 1464 and MVC

No.1339/2010 is filed by another pillion rider for the accidental injuries sustained by him under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act.

5. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

In the claim petitions, it is contended that on 18.05.2010, claimant in MVC No.1407/2010, viz., Ellappa and claimant in

MVC No.1339/2010 Prasad and one Satish were proceeding on a Bajaj Discover motor-cycle bearing No.KA-22/ED-1454 from

Katagali towards Desur village and at about 1.00 a.m., when they came near Katagali bone factory, a Mahindra Commander jeep bearing No.KA-22-M-2378 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor-cycle resulting in fall of the motor-cycle wherein the rider and pillion-riders sustained injuries. They were shifted to the District Hospital and then, to KLE Hospital. Among the injured persons, Satish

Chandrakant Belgaonkar succumbed to the injuries. The other two injured persons, another pillion-rider recovered from the

-11-

injuries after spending huge amount of money towards medical expenses and therefore, claim petitions came to be filed by parents of Satish Chandrakant Belgaonkar and injured persons Prasad and Yallappa seeking award of suitable compensation.

6. In pursuance of the notice issued, Insurance Company of the motor-cycle and Insurance Company of the jeep appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement denying the claim petition averments and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions. Second respondent is the Insurance

Company of the Mahindra Commander jeep, fourth respondent is the insurer of the motor-cycle in question.

7. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal raised the following issues:

MVC NO.1338/2010

1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Satish Chandrakant Belgaonkar has died due to injuries sustained in alleged accident caused on 18.05.2010 at about 1.00 hours while he was proceeding on motor cycle No.KA-22-ED-1464 as a pillion-rider on Katagali Bone Factory road, within

-12-

the limits of Katagali village due to the user of Mahindra Commander Jeep No.KA-22-M-2378 and Bajaj Discover m/c.No.KA-22-ED-1464?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compesnation? If so, for how much and from whom?

3. What order or award?

MVC No.1339/2010

1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained injuries in alleged accident caused on 18.05.2010 at about 1.00 hours while he was proceeding on motor cycle No.KA-22-ED-1464 as a pillion-rider on Katagali Bone Factory road, within the limits of Katagali village due to the user of Mahindra Commander Jeep No.KA-22-M-2378 and Bajaj Discover m/c.No.KA-22-ED-1464?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for how much and from whom?

3. What order or award?

MVC No.1407/2010

1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained injuries in alleged accident caused on

-13-

18.05.2010 at about 1.00 hours while he was proceeding on motor cycle No.KA-22-ED-1464 as a pillion-rider on Katagali Bone Factory road, within the limits of Katagali village due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Mahindra Commander Jeep No.KA-22-M-2378?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for how much and from whom?

3. What order or award?

8. Since all the claim petitions were arising out of one and the same accident, the Tribunal held joint trial.

9. In order to prove the claim petition averments, father of Satish Chandrakant Belgaonkar by name Chandrakant

Jayawant Belgaonkar is examined as P.W.1. Injured persons, viz., Prasad and Yallappa, another pillion-rider and the rider of the motor-cycle respectively, were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3.

Doctor who treated P.Ws.2 and 3 is examined as P.W.4 and eye-witness by name Parashuram Goral was examined as

P.W.5. In all, 30 documents were produced by the claimants which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P.30 pertaining to three claim petitions. On behalf of the Insurance Company,

-14-

three documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3 which are

Insurance policy of the motor-cycle as well as the Insurance policy of the jeep in question. There was no oral evidence placed on record on behalf of the Insurance Company.

10. On cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, Tribunal allowed the claim petitions in part by awarding the following sums of compensation by recording a finding that the rider of the motor-cycle as well as the rider of the jeep were equally negligent which resulted in the accident.

Therefore, directed that Insurance Company of the motor-cycle and Insurance Company of the jeep is ordered to pay the adjudged compensation out of the ratio of 50% each in respect of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act. The Insurance Company of the motor-cycle was inserted as he was the rider of the motor-cycle. It is that judgment which is the subject matter of these appeals.

11. Insofar as Appeal No. MFA 24487/2011 Sri.Ravindra

R.Mane, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-

Insurance Company of the motor-cycle contended that Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petitions against the fourth

-15-

respondent in MVC No.1407/2010. However, Tribunal erred in ordering 50% of the compensation to be paid in respect of claimants in MVC Nos.1338/2010 and 1339/2010 and could have restricted to only one of the pillion-riders, as the seating capacity of the motor-cycle was only for two persons (1+1).

He also submits that he has discharged his burden in satisfying the claim of the claimant who has been awarded higher compensation amount inter se pillion-rider’s claim in respect of

Satish Chandrakant Belgaonkar who is dead in the case on hand. He also submits that to that extent, the appeal of the fourth respondent-Insurance Company of the motor-cycle needs to be allowed.

12. Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel representing the

Insurance Company of the jeep in question not only questioned saddling 50% liability on the jeep dirver by contending that admittedly, three person were traveling on the motor-cycle as against rules of law and police have filed the chargesheet against the rider of the motor-cycle, Tribunal recording a finding that the Insurance Company of the jeep and Insurance

Company of the motor-cycle is liable to pay the compensation

-16-

at the rate of 50% is per se erroneous and sought for allowing the appeals of the second respondent-Insurance Company

(insurer of the jeep).

13. Insofar as quantum is concerned, Sri. M.K.Soudagar submits that Tribunal did not bestow its attention to the II

Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as admittedly, two claims are filed under Section 163-A of the Act and insofar as the rider is concerned, he being the tort feasor by himself, the quantum of compensation should also be accordingly, modified.

14. Sri.Harish S.Maigur, learned counsel for the claimant, however, contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in allowing the meager compensation in all the three claim petitions and he submits that Court may re-assess the compensation as per law for allowing the appeals filed by the claimants.

15. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the records, the following points would arise for consideration:

1) Whether appellant (insurer of the motor-cycle) makes out a case for allowing the appeal in toto and exonerating form the liability?

-17-

2) Whether appellant-Insurance Company (insurer of the jeep) makes out a case for reassessing the apportionment of compensation?

3) Whether the quantum of compensation adjudged by the Tribunal is just compensation?

16. The answer to the Point No.1 is partly in the negative and Point Nos.2 and 3 is in the negative.

17. In the case on hand, the accident involving motor- cycle bearing No. KA 22/ED 1464 and jeep bearing No. KA-

22/M-2378 on 18.05.2010 at 1.00 a.m., near Katagali bone fracture is not in dispute. So also one of the pillion-riders, viz.,

Satish Chandrakant Belgaonkar loosing his life on account of the accidental injuries is not in dispute. Claimants in MVC No.

1339 and 1409/2010 viz., Prasad and Yallappa sustaining injuries is also not in dispute.

18. Admittedly, chargesheet came to be filed against the rider of the motor-cycle who is claimant in MVC No.1407/2010.

The Tribunal rightly considered the stand taken by the insurer of the motor-cycle in MVC No.1407/2010 and rejected the claim against the insurer of motorcycle. The said finding is based on

-18-

sound reasons and does not require to be interfered. Insofar as the judgment of the Tribunal in respect of two pillion-riders, it is settled principle of law that whenever there are more number of passengers than the seating capacity, the Insurance

Company is liable to satisfy higher claim according to the policy conditions and the quantum of compensation adjudged by the

Tribunal to the persons who fall under the eligible seating capacity. In the case on hand, since the Tribunal has awarded higher compensation among the three claimants, to the parents of deceased Satish Chandrakant Belgaonkar, the Insurance

Company of the motor-cycle having satisfied the claim of parents of Satish Chandrakant Belgaonkar to the extent of 50% as per the award. The contention of the Insurance Company of the motor-cycle that its liability is absolved in toto in acceptable .

19. In view of above discussion, the Insurance Company though not liable to satisfy the claim of another pillion-rider, viz., Pramod, the Insurance Company of the motor-cycle is ordered to pay the adjudged compensation to the extent of

50% and recover the same from the owner of the motor-cycle

-19-

who is Respondent No.3 in the claim petitions, though served and unrepresented before this Court. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

20. Insofar as the appeals filed by the Insurance

Company of the jeep is concerned, Sri.M.K.Soudagar vehemently contended that when the chargesheet came to be filed against the rider of the motor-cycle, the Tribunal having recorded a finding that the insurer of the jeep and motor-cycle are to pay the compensation in the ratio of 50%, is per se erroneous.

21. Having regard to the fact that the Insurance

Company of the jeep not placing any evidence on record nor examining the driver of the jeep, the argument put forth by the

Insurance Company of the jeep in question that Insurance

Company of the jeep is not liable solely on the ground that chargesheet is being filed against the rider of motor-cycle cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly point No.2 answered.

22. However, in regard to the quantum of compensation, though there is sufficient force in the arguments advanced by

-20-

the Insurance Company of the motor-cycle as well as the jeep in question. Admittedly, in respect of the death of Satish

Chandrakant Belgaonkar the parents of the deceased and another pillion-rider Prasad have filed their claim under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act.

23. Tribunal did not bestow its attention to the II

Schedule in respect of these two claims are concerned. So also in the case of the claimant and rider of the motor-cycle,

Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation.

Therefore, quantum of compensation needs to be reassessed.

24. In view of the fact that Satish Chandrakant

Belgaonkar has lost his life and parents being the claimants and in view of the fact that injured Prasad is aged 24 years and did not have income of more than Rs.40,000/- p.a., the dependants of Satish Chandrakant Belgaonkar and the injured

Prasad are entitled for the compensation as per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, they are entitled for the following sums:

-21-

MFA No.23229/2010 (Death case)(MVC No.1338/2010)

1 Loss of dependency 4,48,800 2 Medical expenses 15,000 3 Loss of estate 2,500 4 Funeral expenses 2,000 Total 4,68,300

MFA No.23230/2010 (Injury case) (MVC No.1339/2010)

1 Pain and suffering 5,000 2 Medical expenses 15,000 3 Future earnings 1,00,980 3300x12x15%x17 4 Loss of earning during 9,900 laid up period Total 1,30,880

25. Insofar as the rider of the motor-cycle Yallappa’s claim is concerned, he is entitled for the following compensation:

MFA No.23231/2010 (MVC No.1407/2010)

1 Future earning capacity 2,01,960 5500x12x17x18 2 Pain and suffering 45,000 3 Medical expenses 85,000 4 Diet and conveyance 10,000 5. Loss of amenities 30,000 6. Loss of earning during 16,500 laid up period (5500x3) Total 3,88,460

-22-

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, Point No.2 is accordingly answered and following order is passed:

ORDER

Appeal No.24487/2011 (filed by insurer of the motor- cycle) and appeals No.23227/2011, 23330/2011 and

23331/2011 are allowed in part. Appeal Nos.23738/2011,

23739/011 and 23740/2011 (Insurance Company of the jeep).

In modification of the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,68,300/- in

MFA No.23229/2010, compensation of Rs.1,30,880/- in MFA

No.23230/2010 and compensation of Rs.3,88,460/- in MFA

No.23231/2010 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the enhanced compensation.

No order as to costs.

In respect of the claim in MVC No.1339/2010, the

Insurance Company of the motor-cycle is ordered to pay 50% of the adjudged compensation by this Court at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the motor-cycle in the very same proceedings.

-23-

The amount in deposit by the Insurance Company of the motor-cycle and the jeep is ordered to be transferred to the

Tribunal.

Balance amount is to be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Tribunal has ordered 9% interest on the adjudged compensation. Having regard to the bank fixed deposit rate of interest at present, the claimants are entitled for interest at 6% p.a., on the enhanced compensation only.

Sd/- JUDGE bnv