Nagpur Bench: Nagpur vs Unknown
2012 Latest Caselaw 358 Bom

191112FA149.95.odt
                                      1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:




                                                                          
                          NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
                          FIRST APPEAL NO.149/1995




                                                  
        APPELLANTS:
        1] State of Maharashtra, through District Superintendent of
            Police, Amravati




                                                 
        2] Sahebrao Bhonde, aged about 35 years, occ: Driver in
            Traffic Branch, Amravati, Irwin Chowk, Amravati.
        3] District Superintendent f Police, M.T. Division, Aundh,
            Pune, District : Pune.




                                         
        4] Director General of Police, Bombay.
            [Original respondents]
                              ig   VERSUS
        RESPONDENT:
                            
            Ganesh Marotrao Wadurkar, aged about 53 years,
            occupation : Driver, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, Resident
            Jawalaprasad Bungalow, Camp, Amravati.
             


        ==============================================
        Mr. C.N. Adgokar, A G P for appellants
          



        Mr. N.R. Saboo, advocate for respondent
        ==============================================
                            CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J.

DATE: 19.11.2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

award dated 6.12.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No.35/1986 whereby the respondent was awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicular

191112FA149.95.odt

accident occurred on 25.11.1985 involving Luna and Jeep

owned by the appellants.

2] On 25.11.198 the respondent was riding Luna. It was

8.00 - 8.30 a.m. At the "T" junction near the Collectorate the Jeep bearing no. MGP 1005 dashed against Luna causing injuries

to the respondent.

3] The appellant contested the claim by alleging that the accident occurred because of negligence of respondent as well as

the driver of one auto-rickshaw. The learned Tribunal after

considering the evidence brought on record held that the jeep

was being driven in a high speed, even while negotiating "T" junction and because of that accident occurred. He therefore, allowed the claim partly.

4] The learned A G P appearing for the appellants

contended that the learned Tribunal was not justified in reaching the finding that because of rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the jeep accident occurred.

5] Mr. Saboo, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgment and award.

6] The petitioner entered into the witness box and explained the manner in which the accident occurred. According to him, after reaching the square he took left turn for going towards the office of the Zilla Parishad. The Jeep came from the

191112FA149.95.odt

opposite direction and dashed against Luna. It was suggested to

him that while he was taking left turn one auto-rickshaw was parked there and one other auto rickshaw was proceeding ahead

of him. He was following the auto-rickshaw and then tried to overtake it, while doing so, he could not notice the Jeep coming

from opposite direction and gave dash to the Jeep. It is therefore, obvious that the collision between the Jeep and the Luna is not disputed. It also appears that there was no collision between the

auto-rickshaw and the Luna. The learned Tribunal assessed the

oral evidence in the light of the contents in the panchnama and

observed thus:

"This indicates that the jeep was running in a very high speed. The jeep was approaching the"T" point

which is on the main road and normally at this spot

there is a heavy traffic because to the north of this "T" point is Collector Office. To the east of this point

is District Court Premises and to the west there are many offices including Zilla Parishad. The jeep was to take turn either to the right or to the left from the

"T" point which was at short distance. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the jeep driver to keep speed of the vehicle in control. But it appears that he was driving the jeep in a high speed and he

191112FA149.95.odt

could not control the vehicle and this was the cause of

the accident. If the speed would have been reasonable and within control, there was no reason why the jeep

could not be stopped before it dashed. In these circumstances, complete responsibility of the accident

lies on Respondent No.1."

Thus, the finding reached by the learned Tribunal that the Jeep was being driven rashly, despite the fact that it was negotiating

"T" junction appears consistent with the evidence on record.

8] As regards the quantum of compensation, there is a

good deal of evidence including the documentary evidence to point out the injuries sustained by the respondent. On couple of occasions he was required to be an indoor patient because of the

fracture of left femur 1/3rd . He was operated upon. Then he was

required to undergo physio therapy treatment. Ultimately, the amount of compensation fixed by the tribunal is Rs.20,000/-,

which prima facie appears to be on lower side. I therefore, find no substance in this appeal.

Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to

costs.

JUDGE SMP.