Bombay High Court
Director Veicle Research & ... vs Jijabai Nilkanth Patil And Ors on 30 March, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
fa12.02
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2002
Director,
Vehicle Research and Development
Establishment,
Ministry of Defence,
R & D Organisation
PO Vahan Nagar,
Ahmednagar ...Appellant
1.
versus
Shri Rajendra Santosh Patil,
Age 25 years, Occ. Agricultural
2. Smt. Sundrabai Santosh Patil,
Age 44 years, Occ. Household
3. Sau. Ranjana Rajendra Patil,
Age 22 years, Occ. Household,
4. Shri Sanjay Santosh Patil,
Age 22 years, Occ. Student,
All R/o. Dattane, Tq. Sindkheda
District Dhule
5. Shri Sawidersingh Udhamsingh Vrde
(appeal dismissed as against
R.No.5 by order dated 15.3.2005) ...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2002
Director,
Vehicle Research and Development
Establishment,
Ministry of Defence,
R & D Organization
PO Vahan Nagar,
Ahmednagar ...Appellant
versus
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:05:33 :::
fa12.02
-2-
1. Smt. Jijabai Nilkanth Patil,
Age 22 years, Occ. Household
2. Smt. Kamalajabai Puna Patil
Age 55 years, Occ. Household
3. Shri Rakesh Nilkanth patil,
Minor, Age 3 years,
U/g of respondent No.1
All R/o. Dattane, Tq. Sindkheda
District Dhule
5. Shri Sawidersingh Udhamsingh Vrde
Residentail Complex
Po Vahan Nagar
Ahmednagar 414 006 ...Respondents
.....
Advocate for the appellant: Mr. D.G. Nagode,
None for the respondents-original claimants
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 30th MARCH, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated
21.01.2000 passed by learned Member, M.A.C.T. Dhule in M.A.C.P.
Nos. 116 of 1994 and 117 of 1994, the original respondent No.2
preferred both these first appeals.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeals, as as follows:-
a) The accident had taken place on 1.3.1994 at about 3.30
p.m. on Bombay Agra Highway within the jurisdiction of village
Gavhane. At the time of accident, deceased Santosh Patil
fa12.02
alongwith deceased Nilkanth Patil were proceeding to village
Dattane on moped Bajaj M-80 bearing registration No. MJV
2386. Deceased Santosh Patil was riding the said Bajaj M-80
while deceased Nilkanth Patil was pillion rider. Bombay Agra
highway runs north-south in direction and they were proceeding
in northern direction. At that time, one bullet proof military van
bearing registration No. V-583 was coming from northern side.
It was alleged that respondent No.1 was riding the said military
van in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the said
Bajaj M-80 being driven by deceased Santosh Patil, in
consequence of which, both of them were thrown away on the
western side of the road and died on the spot. Legal
representatives of deceased Santosh Patil filed claim petition
No. 116 of 1994 whereas, legal representatives of deceased
Nilkanth Patil filed claim petition No. 117 of 1994 for grant of
compensation, before the M.A.C.T. Dhule.
b) Learned Member of the Tribunal has partly allowed
M.A.C.P. No. 116 of 1994 and directed the respondents, jointly
and severally, to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimants with
interest and cost, whereas, in M.A.C.P. No. 117 of 1994,
learned Member of the Tribunal has directed the respondents,
jointly and severally, to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the
claimants therein, with interest and cost. Being aggrieved by
fa12.02
the same, original opponent No.2 has preferred these two
separate appeals.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased
Santosh Patil was driving Bajaj M-80 in fast speed and in rash and
negligent manner. Learned counsel submits that deceased Santosh
Patil was trying to overtake one truck, which was going ahead of said
Bajaj M-80 at the time of accident. He was trying to overtake the said
truck in fast speed. Learned counsel submits that on noticing the
same, original opponent No.1, who was driving the military van,
lowered down the speed of his vehicle and, in fact, stopped his
vehicle by the side of road i.e. eastern side of Bombay Agra highway.
Learned counsel submits that military van was stopped on left side of
the road. Learned counsel submits that spot panchnama fully
supports the case of the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the
moped Bajaj M-80, which deceased Santosh Patil was riding, gave a
dash to the stationary Military van. The Tribunal has not considered
this aspect and erroneously recorded finding that the driver of military
van alone is responsible for the accident. Learned counsel submits
that deceased Santosh Patil and deceased Nilkanth Patil were
agriculturists by occupation. Learned counsel submits that corpus of
agricultural land remained as it is after their death and the Tribunal, at
the most, should have considered the loss in terms of supervisory
charges. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has not
fa12.02
considered the loss of agricultural income and awarded exorbitant
amount of compensation. Learned counsel submits that the common
judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal in the said two claim
petitions is thus, liable to be quashed and set aside by allowing both
the first appeals.
4. None present for the respondents-original claimants.
5.
The following points arise for my consideration and I record my
findings thereon for the reasons mentioned below:-
Sr.No. Points Findings
1 Whether the claimants prove that In the Affirmative.
death of Santosh Patil and Nilkanth
Patil was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of
military van (original opponent No.1)
bearing registration No. V-583 on
1.3.1994 on Bombay-Agra highway.
2 Whether the Tribunal has correctly In the affirmative.
assessed the compensation?
3 Whether the impugned judgment and In the negative.
awards calls for an interference?
4 What order? As per final order.
REASONS
6. Point No.1 : On careful perusal of the spot panchnama I find
fa12.02
that Bombay-Agra highway is south-north in direction. It is not
disputed that at the time of accident, deceased Santosh Patil was
driving Bajaj M-80 from southern side towards northern side and the
Military van was going from opposite direction i.e. from northern side
and proceeding towards southern direction. It is thus clear that for the
vehicles coming from northern side and proceeding towards southern
side, the correct left side is eastern side of the road. As against this,
for the vehicle coming from southern side and proceeding towards
northern side, the correct left side is western side of the road. It is
the case of the appellant-original opponent No.1 that the driver of
military van involved in the accident had stopped the said van by the
side of the road i.e. towards eastern side of the said road and said
Bajaj M-80 gave dash to the cleaner side of the Military van. On
perusal of the inquest panchnama as well as copy of spot
panchnama, it appears that the said vehicle Bajaj M-80 was lying at a
distance of 15 paces in a curve direction on the western side of the
military van. Even dead bodies of deceased Santosh Patil and
Nilkanth Patil were found lying on the western side of the road. This
fact itself indicate that the accident had occurred in different manner
than deposed by the driver of the Military van. In the event, if the said
Bajaj M-80 gave dash to cleaner side of the stationary military van by
going wrong side i.e. eastern side of the road, then the said moped
Bajaj M-80 would have found towards eastern side in damaged
fa12.02
condition alongwith dead bodies of the rider of moped Santosh Patil
and the pillion rider Nilkanth Patil.
7. The Tribunal has thus rightly observed that the driver of the
vehicle military van has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands
in respect of the manner of accident. In light of the contents of spot
panchnama Exh.24, only irresistible inference that could be drawn is
that the driver of military van alone is responsible for the accident and
none else. I do not find any fault in the findings recorded by learned
Tribunal. It is difficult to digest that deceased Santosh Patil, who was
riding the moped Bajaj M-80, was trying to overtake the truck on the
said road. The documents placed on record does not support the
case of appellant that said Bajaj M-80, in the process of overtaking
the said truck, went in wrong direction and gave dash to the stationery
vehicle military van. In view of this, in my considered opinion, death
of Santosh Patil and Nilkanth Patil took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of military van bearing Registration No.
V-583 on 1.3.1994 on Bombay Agra highway. I accordingly answer
point No.1 in the affirmative.
8. Point No.2 : So far as the quantum in both the claim petitions
is concerned, it appears that learned Member of the Tribunal has
considered notional income of deceased Santosh Patil as well as
deceased Nilkanth Patil. Learned Member of the Tribunal has
fa12.02
considered the notional income of deceased Santosh Patil as
Rs.1500/- p.m. and considered the notional income of deceased
Nilkanth Patil as Rs.2000/- p.m. Learned Member of the Tribunal,
after deducting 1/3rd amount from their income towards their personal
expenses, applied correct multiplier as per their respective ages.
Learned Member of the Tribunal has correctly assessed the loss of
dependency and also awarded compensation under non pecuniary
heads. I do not think that learned Member of the Tribunal has
awarded exorbitant amount of compensation in both the claim
petitions. I accordingly answer the point No.2. I do not find any
substance in both the appeals. Both the first appeals are thus liable to
dismissed with costs. Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
I) First appeal Nos. 12 of 2012 and 13 of 2012 are hereby
dismissed with costs.
II) In response to the order passed by this Court, the
appellant has deposited statutory amount and part of
compensation amount before this Court. The
respondents-claimants are permitted to withdraw the said
amount.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
