- Case
- PRASHANT S/O BABARAO BHONGALE (DECEASED) THR. LRS. SADHANA WD/O PRASHANT BHONGALE AND OTHERS v. MOHAN S/O ANYAJI FARFAD AND ANOTHER (Bombay High Court, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Indian Contract Act, Motor Vehicles Act, Law of Torts.
Facts: Prashant Bhongale died in 2019 due to injuries sustained in a 2015 vehicular accident. His legal representatives (wife, daughters, and mother) appealed for enhanced compensation after the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 32,68,427. The accident occurred when a motorcycle driven by Respondent No. 2 hit Prashant's motorcycle from behind. The appellants settled with Respondent No. 2 (the driver) in Lok Adalat for Rs. 40,00,000, with a specific clause stating this settlement would not affect their right to recover the remaining amount or any enhanced amount from Respondent No. 1 (the owner of the offending vehicle).
Procedural Posture: This is a First Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur. The appeal seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent No. 1 raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal due to the settlement in Lok Adalat with respondent No. 2.
Issue: 1. Does the settlement between the appellants and Respondent No. 2 in Lok Adalat, with a rider clause preserving the right to recover from Respondent No. 1, absolve Respondent No. 1 of liability for the remaining or enhanced compensation? 2. Did the Tribunal err in not considering the income tax return for the year 2015-16, which showed a significant increase in the deceased's income, merely because it was filed after his death?
Holding: 1. No, the settlement with Respondent No. 2 does not absolve Respondent No. 1 of liability, given the specific rider clause in the settlement. The decree holder has the right to proceed against any or all judgment debtors. 2. No, the Tribunal did not err in rejecting the income tax return for 2015-16, as the surge in income was not adequately explained, especially considering the deceased was bedridden and unconscious during that period.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that a decree against multiple defendants holding them jointly and severally liable allows the decree holder to recover from any or all of them. Relinquishing the right to recover from one judgment debtor does not absolve the others, especially when the compromise includes a clause preserving the right to recover from the remaining debtors. The Court distinguished the case from Sonba vs. Sunil, as that case involved a full and final settlement, whereas this case had a specific rider. Regarding the income tax return, the Court emphasized that the consideration of income tax returns filed after death depends on the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the 2015-16 return due to the unexplained surge in income during a period when the deceased was incapacitated. The court cited Khushro S. Gandhi and Ors. vs. N. A. Guzder and Ors. to support the view that a compromise with one defendant does not necessarily bar suing the remaining defendants.
