Bombay High Court
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd ... vs Sharad Narayanrao Naralkar And ... on 6 April, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 FA 276.2000 +CA.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2000
WITH
CA/4371/2000 IN FA/276/2000
...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
through the Branch Manager,
Gurudwara Road, Nanded
By duly constituted Attorney,
Deepak Dattatraya Bhalerao,
age 46 years, Occ. Service, as
Divisional Manager,
The oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Adalat Road, Aurangabad. Appellant
[Orig resp No.2.]
VERSUS
1. Sharad s/o Narayanrao Naralkar,
age 40 years, Occ. Service,
with Texcom Textiles, Dhanegaon,
Tq. & Dist.Nanded. Resp No.1/
orig. claimant.
2. The Managing Director,
Texcom Textiles, P.O. Box 26,
Dhanegaon, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. Resp No.2./
orig resp no.1
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr A A Joshi
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr V D Patnoorkar
Respondent No.2 Absent.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: April 06, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award
2 FA 276.2000 +CA.odt
passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Nanded in MACP No.281/1994, the original respondent
no.2-insurer has preferred this appeal.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as
under :-
a] On 15.1.1994 the respondent-original claimant was
riding his moped vehicle Bajaj M-80 bearing registration
No.MH-26/1454. He was going to his office alongwith
pillion rider Shri S.S.Deshpande. The
respondent/original claimant is an employee of
respondent No.1. On that day, while riding the said
moped vehicle, when he reached near the office of Cidco
at about 09.20 am, a staff transportation bus bearing
registration No.7418 was going ahead of the petitioner's
moped vehicle. There was crowd in front of the office of
CIDCO as certain agitation was going on on account of
the change in the name of Marathwada University.
There was sort of unrest and tension in the said locality.
At that time, driver of the bus apprehend that some
untoward incident may occur and, therefore, suddenly
the driver started taking the staff transportation Bus in
3 FA 276.2000 +CA.odt
reverse direction, in consequence of which said staff bus
gave dash to the moped of the respondent/claimant
from backside. The claimant and pillion rider were
thrown off the vehicle and sustained injuries.
Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to the private
hospital by his colleagues in the same staff vehicle and
he was treated there as indoor patient for near about a
month. Injuries sustained by him also resulted into
permanent disability and, he also incurred medical
expenses for the treatment. The Respondent-claimant
has therefore, filed claim petition bearing No.281/1994
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded.
The learned Member, of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Nanded by impugned Judgment and Award
17.6.2000 directed the respondents no.1 and 2 jointly
and severally to pay Rs.25,000/- to the claimant
alongwith interest from the date of petition till the
realization of the amount. Being aggrieved by the same,
the original respondent no.2 Insurer has preferred this
appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer
4 FA 276.2000 +CA.odt
submits that, the claimant himself was negligent at the
relevant time and, as such the accident had occurred.
Learned counsel submits that, there is no evidence that
said staff transportation bus was involved in the
accident. Learned counsel submits that, after noticing
the crowd in front of the Cidco office, the claimant
started turning his moped vehicle without taking proper
care and caution and moped vehicle skidded and
therefore, he fell down on the road. Learned counsel
submits that, as the claimant was in employment of the
respondent no.1, out of humanity and sympathy some of
the staff members immediately rendered help to him
and took him to the private hospital. Learned counsel
submits that the claimant by giving a false report
manipulated false panchnama through the police
agency. Learned counsel submits that, the Tribunal has
not considered the same and, accordingly awarded the
compensation to the claimant from the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for respondent-original claimant
submits that, the claimant has examined himself on
oath before the Tribunal and his evidence discloses that
5 FA 276.2000 +CA.odt
the staff bus vehicle gave dash to his vehicle Bajaj M-80
and, as such, he was thrown on the ground. There is
evidence that the claimant has, therefore, sustained
injuries on his knee cap and accordingly incurred the
medical expenses. Learned counsel submits that, the
department had assured him to give compensation and
as such, he did not approach the police immediately
after the accident. Learned counsel submits that, there
is nothing in his cross examination to dis-believe his
version. Learned counsel submits that, the claimant
has also examined one more witness who was the
passenger in the said transportation vehicle. He has
categorically deposed that, when the said staff
transportation bus came in front of Cidco office, driver
of the said bus abruptly applied the brakes and started
taking the bus in reverse direction. He thereafter heard
sound from the back side of the bus. He and other
passengers in the staff bus alighted. The claimant
Sharad was lying on the ground and was unable to
stand up due to injuries sustained by him. Learned
counsel submits that, the driver of the staff bus did not
enter in witness box. Learned counsel submits that, the
6 FA 276.2000 +CA.odt
original respondent no.1 examined another passenger of
the said transportation bus, however, his evidence is not
worthy of relying upon. Learned counsel submits that,
said witness of respondent no.1 has exaggerated the
story and described the incident in a different manner
as pleaded by the respondent no.1. Learned counsel
submits that, the claimant has submitted an
application Exh.60 before the General Manager of
respondent No.1 to grant him special medical leave
alongwith the compensation towards medical expenses.
His application was not rejected by respondent No.1.
Learned counsel submits that, the Tribunal has
considered all these facts and awarded just and
reasonable compensation to the claimant. Learned
counsel submits that, no interference is required and
the appeal is thus liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
6. It appears from the evidence that, the respondent/
claimant has deposed about the manner in which
accident had taken place and how he was thrown away
7 FA 276.2000 +CA.odt
from his moped after receiving the dash of staff bus
which abruptly started coming in reverse direction. In
his cross examination, respondent-claimant has
deposed that he tried to run away alongwith the vehicle
when he saw the staff bus coming in reverse direction.
Even considering the nature of the injuries sustained by
the claimant, it is not possible that the claimant might
have sustained the injuries when he started taking
moped in another direction and in that event, his moped
was skidded and he fell down on the ground. Oral
evidence of PW 2 Tukaram PathaK has rightly
appreciated by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. PW 2
Tukaram Pathak is an independent witness. He was
travelling in the said transportation bus. His evidence
appears to be natural, cogent and reliable. According to
him, when the driver of the staff transportation bus
came in front of the Cidco office, abruptly applied
brakes and started taking staff bus in reverse direction.
Even he had also heard sound of certain impact from
the back side of the staff bus. He and other passengers
when alighted from the bus saw that claimant Sharad
was lying on the ground and and he was unable to
8 FA 276.2000 +CA.odt
stand up due to injuries sustained by him. There is
nothing in his cross examination to disbelieve his
version. He is one of the staff member and he was
travelling in the staff transportation bus in that capacity
at the time of alleged incident.
7. So far as evidence of D.W.1 Arvind Tadwalkar is
concerned, he has deposed that staff bus was stationary
and the claimant had tried to over take the stationary
bus from right side and when he reached near the Cidco
office, as there was crowd the claimant could not control
his vehicle, lost balance on his own and fell down and
sustained injuries. The learned Judge of the Tribunal
has rightly observed that, there is no pleadings to this
effect by respondent no.1 that the claimant started
overtaking staff bus and after seeing the crowd in front
of the Cidco office, lost his balance from the running
moped.
8. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to
show that the accident had taken place in the manner
as deposed by the claimant. There is evidence on record
9 FA 276.2000 +CA.odt
to show that the claimant had sustained injuries and he
remained as indoor patient between 15.1.1994 to
9.2.1994 in the hospital of Dr. Degloorkar. Even Exh.57
to 59 shows that the claimant availed leave for the said
period on the ground of illness. The learned Judge of
the Tribunal has considered entire evidence and thus
awarded just and reasonable compensation to the
claimant. I do not find any fault in the impugned
Judgment and Award. There is no merit in the appeal.
Hence, following order is passed.
O R D E R
I. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
II. In response to the order passed by this Court,
the appellant has deposited entire amount
before this Court.
III. The respondent/original claimant is entitled to
withdraw the said amount alongwith accrued
interest during the pendency of appeal on it.
IV. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
V. Pending civil application, if any, also stands
disposed of. sd/-
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
aaa/- .......
