Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sou. Jyoti Nanasaheb Vaivale Thr. Her Next Friend/ Husband Shri. Nanasaheb G. Vaivale And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.639 OF 2017 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

4th Floor, Chintamani Avenue, Off Western Express Highway, Next to Virwani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (E) } } } } ....Appellant V/s.

1. Sou.Jyoti Nanasaheb Vaivale Thr. Her Next Friend/Husband Shri.Nanasaheb Gangadhar Vaivale R/at Hargude Wasti, Post Sanaswadi, Taluka-Shirur, District-Pune } } } } } } } } } } ....Respondents by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2023.12.13 10:18:28 +0530 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE

2. Smt.Sunita Bhaskar Pawar O/at-4021, A-Wing, Bhima Complex, Steel Market, Kalamboli, Taluka-Panvel, District-Raigad.

---- Ms.Poonam Mital, for the Appellant.

None for the Respondents.

---- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 1st DECEMBER 2023 JUDGMENT :- .

The issue involved in this Appeal is income of the Claimant is considered on higher side.

2.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3

Appellant that, the Tribunal has considered income of Claimant @ Rs.5,000/- per month. The Claimant was working as a labourer in Private Company. No proof was produced on record to show the income of the Claimant still the Tribunal has awarded the compensation, on the basis of said income, which is on higher side. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal. 3.

The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1Claimant is absent. Hence, I am deciding this matter on merit. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('The Tribunal' for short), Pune. 5.

The Respondent No.1/Claimant has examined herself to prove her income. She has stated that, she was working as a labourer in Private Company on salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to accident her right leg and right hand are amputated. She can't do any work or activity. Due to amputation she is unable to wear her personal clothes.

6.

The Tribunal while dealing with issue of income of Claimant, has observed that, the Claimant was working as a N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3

sweeper on salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. She was permanent employee of the company. On that basis monthly income is considered. I do not find any infirmity in it. 7.

In view of above, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is dismissed.

(ii) The Respondent No.1/Claimant is permitted to withdraw amount deposited by the AppellantInsurance Company along with accrued interest thereon.

(iii) The statutory amount alongwith interest be transferred to the Tribunal. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per rule.

(iv) All pending Civil and Interim Applications are disposed of.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) N.S. Kamble page 3 of 3