Bombay High Court
Smt Hina Indrajeet Sloanki And 2 ... vs M.S.R.T.C. And Another on 11 April, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
fa437.04 +.J.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.437 OF 2004
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through the Divisional
Controller, Bhandara Division,
Bhandara. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1]
Smt. Hina wd/o Indrajeet Solanki
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
2] Master Kunal s/o Indrajeet Solanki
Aged about 12 years,
Occ: Student.
3] Ku. Kripa d/o Indrajeet Solanki
Aged about 15 years,
Occ; Student.
No.2 & 3 minors, through natural
guardian mother Smt. Hina wd/o Indrajeet
Solanki.
All 1 to 3 R/o Solanki Agricultural Farm
at Mundipur, P.O. Dhakni, Tah. Gondia,
Dist. Gondia.
4] Jagdev s/o Panchamani Koram
Appeal dismissed Aged about 40 years, Occ: Driver,
against R.No.4 as C/o Depot Manager, Maharashtra
per Registrar's order
dtd. 01.10.2013.
State Road Transport Corporation,
Sakoli Depot, Dist. Bhandara. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for Appellant.
None for Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:51:47 :::
fa437.04 +.J.odt 2/6
FIRST APPEAL NO.121 OF 2005
1] Smt. Hina wd/o Indrajeet Solanki
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Household.
2] Master Kunal s/o Indrajeet Solanki
Aged about 12 years,
Occ: Student.
3] Ku. Kripa d/o Indrajeet Solanki
Aged about 13 years,
Occ; Student.
Appellants No.2 & 3, being minors,
represented through their natural
guardian mother appellant No.1
Smt. Hina wd/o Indrajeet Solanki.
All 1 to 3 R/o Near Ramnagar Municipal
School, Gondia, Tah. & Dist. Gondia. ....... APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1] Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through the Divisional
Controller, Bhandara Division,
Bhandara, Tah. & Dist. Bhandara.
2] Jagdev s/o Panchamani Koram
Appeal is dismissed Aged about 40 years, Occ: Driver,
in default against C/o Depot Manager, Maharashtra
R.No.2 vide Reg.
(J) order dtd.
State Road Transport Corporation,
09.06.2015. Sakoli Depot, Dist. Bhandara. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for Appellants.
Shri A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th APRIL, 2016.
DATE: 11
fa437.04 +.J.odt 3/6
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] In Claim Petition No.146 of 1997 filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.2,71,000/- inclusive of no fault liability with interest
at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application 04.08.1997
till 31.12.2001 and at the rate of 9% per annum from 01.01.2002 till its
realization of the entire amount. The driver and the owner of the vehicle
are held jointly and severally liable to pay such amount. The owner of
the vehicle i.e. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has
preferred this appeal challenging the award of compensation.
The claimant has filed an appeal First Appeal No.121 of 2005 for
enhancement of compensation. Hence, both these appeals are heard
together.
2] Heard Shri Mehadia, the learned counsel appearing for the
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation in both these appeals.
However, none appears for the claimant in both these appeals.
3] The accident in question occurred on 30.07.1995 at about
05:00 p.m. near village Kudwa on Gondia - Tirora road. The bus bearing
registration No.MH-31 9913 owned by the appellant - Corporation was
coming from the side road of village Kinhi and had entered the main
fa437.04 +.J.odt 4/6
road from Tirora to Gondia, at that time the deceased riding on Scooter
LML Vespa bearing registration No.GH-7 C-730 coming from Tirora side
dashed on the back side of the bus, as soon as the bus entered the main
road. The handle of the Vespa dashed the bus and the deceased fell and
suffered injury and subsequently succumbed to it.
4] The Tribunal has found that the driver of the S.T. bus was
rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, as a result of which, the
accident occurred and the deceased has died. I have gone through the
spot panchnama and it is also the finding recorded by the Tribunal that
there were tyre marks of the Scooter for about 15 feet in length on the
main road. There is a dispute on the aspect that after the bus entered the
main road, it was stopped either for alighting the passengers or due to
crossing the road by cows. Though, the stand of the driver was that the
bus was required to be stopped due to sudden crossing of the cows, this
is not the story, which he has deposed in his deposition. One eye witness
examined has deposed that the bus stopped to permit the passengers to
alight from it. Be that as it may, the driver of the bus cannot be held
solely responsible for the accident in question. The tyre marks of the
Scooter for 15 feet before the dash clearly shows that the Scooter was in
a high speed and had lost control due to the bus suddenly entering the
main road. In the facts and situation, at the most the driver of the bus
can be held negligent only to the extent of 50% and not beyond that the
fa437.04 +.J.odt 5/6
Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the driver of the bus
solely responsible for the accident in question.
5] In the result, the appeal filed by the M.S.R.T.C. needs to be
partly allowed and the appeal filed by the claimants is required to be
dismissed. Hence, the following order is passed.
[i] The driver of the bus is held negligent only to the extent of
50% and hence, the liability of the appellant shall be
reduced to that extent.
[ii] There is no case made out for enhancement of
compensation by the claimants and hence Appeal No.121 of
2005 is dismissed.
[iii] The amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its
realization.
6] It is informed that the appellant had deposited an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- in this Court, which has been permitted to be withdrawn
by the claimant upon furnishing security. Hence, the security furnished
stands discharged and the balance amount is directed to be deposited in
fa437.04 +.J.odt 6/6
this Court within a period of eight weeks from today and the claimant if
approaches this Court for grant of permission to withdraw the amount
the same shall be permitted by the office. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
NSN
