Bombay High Court
Basandas Gotiram Naik vs Raghunath Rajaram Yerwad & 4 ... on 11 April, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
fa515.04.J.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.515 OF 2004
Basandas Gotiram Naik,
Aged 50 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Taroda, Tq. Motala,
Dist. Buldhana. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Raghunath Rajaram Yerawad,
Aged about 49 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
2] Sau. Tarabai w/o Raghunath Yerwad,
Aged about 44 years,
Occ: Household.
3] Ku. Babita d/o Raghunath Yerwad,
Aged about 19 years,
Occ: Student.
4] Dilip Ragunath Yerwad,
Aged about 17 years,
Occ: Student.
All respondents 1 to 4 are
resident of Taroda, Tq. Motala,
Dist. Buldhana.
The Respondent No.4 is minor,
through guardian father applicant
No.1.
5] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch at Malkapur,
Dist. Buldhana. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Deepali Sapkal, Advocate holding for Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate
for Appellant.
Shri P.R. Puri, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:51:47 :::
fa515.04.J.odt 2/3
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th APRIL, 2016.
DATE: 11
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] In a case of death, as a result of accident in question which
occurred on 09.02.1996, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.32,000/- payable by the appellant - owner
of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor and Trolley bearing registration
No.MH-28 A-6498 and MH-28 B-1036 in addition to the no fault liability
of Rs.50,000/- said to have been deposited by the Insurance Company.
The amount is payable along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
The owner of the vehicle is before this Court to challenge the award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2] The undisputed factual position is that the deceased was
sitting on the mud guard of the tractor in question and as a result of rash
and negligent driving of the vehicle, he fell down from the tractor and
died. The Insurance Company has been discharged on the ground that
the driver of the vehicle was not possessing the valid driving licence on
the date of the accident. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel
for the appellant, but she submits that the Tractor was being driven by
one Kartar Singh, who was working as a Cleaner of the Tractor, but he
did not obtain permission or consent of the appellant - owner of the
fa515.04.J.odt 3/3
vehicle to drive the said vehicle. The driver has admitted this fact.
3] It is apparent that the owner of the vehicle is vicariously
liable to pay the compensation on account of rash and negligent driving
of the Tractor by the agent. If the case of the appellant is to be accepted
that the driver had driven the Tractor without his prior consent and
knowledge then it is open for the appellant to recover such amount from
the said person. The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal cannot be set aside on that count.
4] In view of this, there is no substance in the appeal.
The appeal needs to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
NSN
