Skip to content


Chhaya Ankush Singan and ors. Vs. Ashok Narayan More and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1(1985)ACC269; 2(1985)ACC219
AppellantChhaya Ankush Singan and ors.
RespondentAshok Narayan More and ors.
Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 41: [ swatanter kumar, cj, smt ranjana desai & d.b. bhosale, jj] arrest of accused - held, a police officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the code. the provisions of section 41 of the code provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant. a distinct and different power under section 44 of the code empowers the magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. under section 44 of the code, that power is vested in the court of the magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. if the legislature has taken care of providing such specific power..........against the order of compensation passed by the learned member of the motor accidents claims tribunal, solapur awarding an amount of rs, 57,600/-as compensation to the claimants.2. shri patnakar the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended before us that the various deductions made by the learned member of the tribunal are wholly unwarranted in law. we find much substance in this contention of shri patnakar. the deductions on account of payment of gratuity, provident fund or family pension received by the wife are wholly unwarranted. it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter in detail in view of the decision of this court in first appeal no. 709 of 1982 smt. padmadevi jadhav v. kabalsing sardarji and ors., decided on 14th nov. 1984. admittedly even if.....
Judgment:

Dharmadhikari J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the original claimants against the order of compensation passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solapur awarding an amount of Rs, 57,600/-as compensation to the claimants.

2. Shri Patnakar the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants contended before us that the various deductions made by the learned Member of the Tribunal are wholly unwarranted in law. We find much substance in this contention of Shri Patnakar. The deductions on account of payment of gratuity, provident fund or family pension received by the wife are wholly unwarranted. It is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter in detail in view of the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 709 of 1982 Smt. Padmadevi Jadhav v. Kabalsing Sardarji and Ors., decided on 14th Nov. 1984. Admittedly even if the deceased would have survived, he would have received the amount towards the gratuity, provident fund and pension. From the evidence it appears that he was also entitled to get pension after retirement. In these circumstances such deductions from the compensation amount are wholly uncalled for. If the said deductions are not permitted then on proper calculation the appellants-claimants will be entitled to additional amount of Rs. 54,350/-. To that extent, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed Hence the appeal is partly allowed. The figure of Rs. 57,600/-stands substituted by Rs. 1,11,995/- and rounded up to Rs. 1,12,000/-. It is needless to say that the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation of the amount or its deposit in court. Obviously, in view of the insurance policy the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 50,000/- and the cost of the application proportionate to the said amount, and interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% from the date of application till the deposit or payment, though the award is passed against all the opponents jointly and severally. We are informed that the said amount is already deposited by the Insurance Company. In view of this the additional amount that is over and above Rs. 50,000/- will have to be paid by the Solapur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd Solapur since the award is a joint and several. Shri Mandlik the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 the Solapur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., wants time of three months to deposit the balance amount together with interest and the proportionate cost. Time is granted The amount of Rs. 10,000/- each shall be invested in the Cumulative Fixed Deposit for five years initially in the joint names of Nazir, District Court Solapur and the Claimants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. On maturity thereof the said claimants are at liberty to seek further orders from the Tribunal. The balance amount will be payable to the claimant No. 1 Chhaya Ankush Singan, the wife of the deceased and since the claimant No. 1 is a widow the trial court is directed to pass appropriate order about the deposit and/or investment and/or withdrawal of the said amount in consonance with the guidelines laid down by this Court in Nav Bharat Builders and Anr. v. Smt. Pyarabai wd/o Dadu Mane. The claimants are at liberty to approach the Tribunal for necessary orders in the matter. The Tribunal will also make necessary arrangements for payment of interest on the amount deposited to the claimant No. 1 the widow of the deceased for herself and for end on behalf of the minor claimants.

3. Hence appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //