Mannusing Shriram Chavan vs Purushottam Devidas Bochare And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1423 Bom

    15-J-FA-1072-15                                                                                 1/4


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                            
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO.1072 OF 2015




                                                                    
    Mannusing Shriram Chavan 
    Aged 23 years, Occ. St. Bus Driver, 




                                                                   
    R/o Sunderkhed, Tq. & Dist. Buldana.                               ... Appellant. 

    -vs- 




                                                     
    1.  Purushottam Devidas Bochare,  
         Aged Major, Occ. Vehicle Driver, 
         R/o Jalamb, Tq. Shegaon,     
         Dist. Buldana. 

    2.  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 
                                     
         Thr. Branch Manager, 
         Khamgaon, Near Deoji Khemji 
         Mangal Karyalaya, 
         Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldana.                                  ... Respondents. 
              
           



    Shri Manoj P. Karia, Advocate for appellant. 
    Shri       Raulkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. 
    Shri S. N. Dhanagare, Advocate for respondent No.2. 





                                                  CORAM  : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. 

DATE : April 12, 2016

Oral Judgment :

In view of notice for final disposal issued on 07/12/2015, the

appeal is heard finally by admitting the same.

The appellant is the original claimant who had filed proceedings

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short, the said Act)

seeking compensation from the respondents on account of accident dated

25/06/2007. In the claim application, a prayer was made for grant of

15-J-FA-1072-15 2/4

compensation for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The respondent No.1 filed

written statement opposing the claim. By the impugned judgment, the

learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldana held that

the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the proceedings as an earlier claim

petition filed by the appellant had already been decided. By holding that the

second petition was not maintainable, the Tribunal dismissed the claim

petition on 09/06/2015. Hence this appeal.

2. Shri M. P. Karia, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim petition on

the ground that the appellant had filed a separate claim petition earlier.

According to him, one Madhukar Mirge had filed Claim Petition No.34 of

2009 arising from the same accident which was decided on 22/09/2009. He

submitted that said claim petition had nothing to do with Claim Petition

No.148 of 2009 filed by the appellant and therefore adjudication of the

earlier claim petition had no bearing on the claim petition filed by the

appellant. It was submitted that the impugned judgment was liable to be set

aside and the proceedings for compensation were required to be entertained

on their own merits.

3. Shri Raulkar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1

supported the impugned judgment on the ground that as the claimant who

15-J-FA-1072-15 3/4

had filed Claim Petition No.34 of 2009 had sought compensation for the

accident that occurred on 25/06/2007 and therefore the dismissal of the

Claim Petition was justified. He however, does not dispute that Claim

Petition No.34 of 2009 was filed by one Madhurkar Mirge and the appellant

herein was not a party to said proceedings. Shri S. N. Dhanagare, the

learned counsel appeared for the respondent No.2.

4.

With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone

through the records of the case and I have also perused the impugned

judgment. The following point arises for determination :

" Whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in holding that the

claim petition filed by the appellant was barred on account of res judicata?"

It is not in dispute that the appellant who was a driver of a State

Transport bus had filed Claim Petition No.148 of 2009 under Section 166 of

the said Act. It is further not in dispute that Claim Petition No.34 of 2009

was filed by one Madhukar Mirge who was travelling in the State Transport

bus of which the appellant was the driver. Though the accident dated

25/06/2007 gave rise to two claim petitions, same were required to be

independently decided. The appellant was not a party in Claim Petition

No.34 of 2009 and therefore the adjudication of that claim petition on

22/09/2009 had no bearing on the claim petition filed by the appellant.

15-J-FA-1072-15 4/4

5. The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal however failed to

take into consideration the fact that the claimants in both the claim petitions

were different and the proceedings were required to be independently

decided. The judgment in Claim Petition No.34 of 2009 at Exhibit-105

makes aforesaid position clear. In these facts therefore, the learned Member

was not justified in dismissing the present proceedings on the ground that

the same were barred by principles of res judicata. The point as framed is

answered by holding that Claim Petition No.148 of 2009 could not have been

dismissed on the ground that the same was barred by principles of res

judicata.

6. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed :

(i) The judgment dated 09/06/2015 in Claim Petition No.148 of

2009 is set aside.

(ii) The proceedings are remitted to the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Buldhana for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

The records of the proceedings be sent forthwith to the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana.

(iii) The First Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

JUDGE

Asmita