Shubhada S Kadam 39-fa-877-2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.877 of 2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd., having their Mumbai Regional Office at Sterling Cinema Bldg., 5th Floor, Murzban Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. … Appellant versus 1 Malan Kalu Pawar, Age-28 years, Occup.Household herself as a guardian of Nos.2 and 3:- 2 Swapnil Kalu Pawar, Age – 9 years, Occup. Education. 3 Akshada Kalu Pawar, Age – 6 years, Occup. Education. 4 Savitra Dagadu Pawar, Age – 60 years, Occup. Household All r/o. Tambave Tal. Phaltan, Dist. Satara 5 Ashok Laxman Barge, Age : 51 years, Occup : Farmer 6 Sujeet Ashok Barge, Age – 26 years, Occup.Education. Both R/o.Tambave, Tal. Phaltan, Dist. Satara. 7 The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited , Branch Wai, Dist. Satara. …. Respondents 1/5 SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2025.07.11 19:06:21 +0530 Shubhada S Kadam 39-fa-877-2016.doc Ms. Urmila K. Sanil, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Atharva R. B. i/b. Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants. Mr. H. G. Misar, Advocate for Respondent No.7. CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 1st JULY, 2025. Judgment : 1. The issues involved in the appeal are, the deceased did not die due to accident, secondly, the income of the deceased was higher than the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V.Act”), FIR was not lodged against any person and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending trailer. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company that the accident occurred when the trailer was parked and the deceased was untightening the nut bolts of the wheel. Due to air pressure, the nut bolts struck the deceased in face, leading to his death. Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending trailer was not present. The accident did not occur while the trailer was moving, so the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the act of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. The monthly income of the deceased was shown as Rs.6,000/- per month. In written statement, the Insurance Company took objection regarding 2/5 Shubhada S Kadam 39-fa-877-2016.doc maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. Thereafter, the said income was reduced but these facts are not considered by the Tribunal and has allowed the claim petition, which is erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the appeal. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants that at the time of the accident, the offending trailer was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The accident occurred while repairing the said trailer. No evidence was led by the appellant – Insurance company, by whose negligence, the accident occurred. Though earlier, the income of the deceased was shown as Rs.6,000/- per month in claim petition, the said claim petition was amended and it was shown as Rs.3300/-. The said amendment was not challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to dismiss the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted that appropriate order be passed. 5. I have heard all learned counsel, perused the judgment passed by he Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara (for short “the Tribunal”). 6. It is claimants’ case that on 31st October 2012 at about 11.00 am, they were servicing and greasing the tractor and trailer. The deceased was working as agricultural labourer and supervisor with the owner of the offending trailer. The deceased was loosening the bolts of 3/5 Shubhada S Kadam 39-fa-877-2016.doc the trailer for greasing purposes. While doing so, the bolts from the wheel and disc were forcefully ejected due to air pressure and struck the deceased in the face. As a result, he lost consciousness and died while undergoing medical treatment. 7. The claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal has observed that since the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was not necessary to establish negligence on the part of the deceased. At the time of accident, the trailer was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Though the learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the deceased was not a qualified mechanic and loosening the bolts of the trailer was not part of his duty, therefore, he was negligent. No evidence was produced in that regard, on that ground, the Tribunal has fixed liability on Insurance Company. I do not find infirmity in it. 6. In my view, admittedly, the accident occurred while removing the nut bolts of the trailer. It was sudden incident. Though the trailer was stationary, the death of the deceased was caused by the wheel and parts of the trailer, therefore, it was an accident. As observed earlier, the trailer was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Hence, the appellant-Insurance is liable to pay compensation. 7. In respect of computation of income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-, the claimants had filed an application for amendment to reduce the income of the deceased. Accordingly, it was reduced and 4/5 Shubhada S Kadam 39-fa-877-2016.doc limited below Rs.40,000/- as per the requirement under Section 163A of the M.V.Act. The said amendment is not challenged by the appellant- Insurance Company, hence, the claim petition was as per the norms of Section 163A. Considering the above reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and I pass following order : O R D E R 1. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. 2. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon. 3. The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule. 4. Record and proceedings be sent to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara. 8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) 5/5