United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Anandrao @ Anna Vishnu Chavan And Anr

CNR No : HCBM010178392008

2026:BHC-AS:43748
3-FA-1146-08.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1146 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3125 OF 2008
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ]
Mumbai Regional Office II ]
rd
Maker Bhavan No.1, 3 floor, Sir. ]
V. T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 ] …Appellant
V/s.
1. Anandrao @ Anna Vishnu Chavan ]
Age:39, Shivshakti Seva Sangh, ]
New Gautam Nagar, Plot No.4, ]
Govandi, Mumbai-43 ]
2. Murmalal Manikchand Kesarvani ]
L.I.C. 25, Room No.6, Sector-10, ]
Nerul, Navi Mumbai ] ...Respondents
*
Mr. Amol Gatne Advocate for the Appellant.
None For the Respondents.
*
rsk 1/6
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

3-FA-1146-08.doc
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
th
DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard Mr. Gatne, learned advocate for the Appellant.
th
2. The Tribunal as per award dated 28 November 2007 directed
the insurer and insured of three wheeler tempo bearing Registration
No. MH-04-AG-4357 to pay compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- towards
loss of income on account of injuries caused to Respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 is insured of three wheeler tempo. Whereas the
Appellant is insurer.
3. This award is challenged by the insurer appellant. When notice
of the appeal was issued to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, there is a remark
that full and current address of Respondent No.1 was not there whereas
notice on Respondent No.2 returned with remark wrong address. On
this background and considering the limited issue involved in this
appeal, I have heard Mr.Gatne, learned advocate for the Appellant. He
has raised following grounds:
a. There is no evidence to the effect that the claimant insured
rsk 2/6
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

3-FA-1146-08.doc
was owner of the goods and as such is not third party
and hence insurer is not liable.
b. On the aspect of negligence he submitted that the
offending vehicle could not be ascertained but the
liability has to be shared in between the owner of the three
wheeler tempo and that offending vehicle. He invited my
attention to the observations in paragraph 6 of the
impugned judgment.
c. He invited my attention to spot panchanama carried out by
rd
Turbhe police station dated 23 October 1999 Exhibit 11.
According to him there is no reference of boxes of tomato.
It indicates that the insured has not travelled in three
wheeler tempo as the owner of the goods but as a
gratuitous passenger.
4. For the reasons given hereinafter I am rejecting all the
contentions.
5. The accident took place in the intervening night on 22 October
1999 and 23 October 1999 i.e. 3.30 a.m. in the early morning. The
claimant along with his brother were to deliver 19 boxes of tomato at
rsk 3/6
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

3-FA-1146-08.doc
fruit market Vashi. They had come to Vashi in different vehicle. When
they were about to go to MAFCO market instead of hiring a handcart
they hired three wheeler tempo. When this tempo started towards
Sanpada at about 4:00 a.m. at a signal, one unknown tempo came at
fast speed and dashed three wheeler tempo due to which he sustained
injuries. It is true that the identity of that motor tempo could not be
ascertained. At the same time it is true that there is an offence
registered with Turbhe Police Station bearing CR No.523 of 1999
under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and under Section 184 and 187
of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. It is referred in spot panchanama
rd
dated 23 October 1999.
6. It was lodged by one Baban Vishnu. He seems to be the brother
of the claimant-injured. It is true that panchanama was carried on at
9:00 to 9:15 a.m. on 23 October 1999. It is also true that there is no
reference of tomato boxes in three wheeler tempo. This absence may be
for various reasons one is boxes were not carried in three wheeler
tempo and another is, these boxes might have been removed till the
time of carrying out the panchanama. It is not pointed out to me
during cross-examination that this fact was asked to claimant. I am
rsk 4/6
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

3-FA-1146-08.doc
rejecting it.
7. In view of above, the theory of the claimant that he was the
nd
owner of the goods has to be accepted. The accident took place on 22
October 1999 and as per 1994 amendment the owner of the goods is
covered as per the category of persons who is entitled for compensation
as per Section 147 of the MV Act.
8. On the point of negligence it is true that two vehicles are
involved. Admittedly, the claimant has not contributed to the accident.
He was one of the occupant of three wheeler tempo. The identity of
the other motor tempo could not be identified. It is true that case of
composite negligence is there, the insured is having option to claim
compensation against the owner or insurer of either of the vehicle. It is
1
held in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. . In this
case the claimant has claimed compensation from the owner and
insured of three wheeler tempo in which he was travelling.
9. In view of this I do not find that interference is required. From
the evidence of the claimant and the spot panchanama it can very well
be said that driver of the three wheeler tempo is also responsible for
1
2015 (9) SCC 273
rsk 5/6
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

3-FA-1146-08.doc
the accident. No interference warranted. Hence the order:
ORDER
i. Appeal is dismissed.
ii. Statutory amount along with interest be transferred to
the Tribunal for disbursal.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
rsk 6/6
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)