Bombay High Court
Sarladevi Wd/O Girjashankar ... vs Mathura Wd/O Ashok Pal & Others on 9 March, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
fa164.04.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.164 OF 2004
Smt. Sarladevi wd/o Girjashankar Gupta,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation: Household,
Resident of Plot No.48, Nehru Nagar,
Khamla Road, Nagpur. ....... APPELLANT
ig ...V E R S U S...
1] Smt. Mathura wd/o Ashok Pal,
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation: Household,
Resident of Shende Nagar,
Teka Naka, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur.
2] Nilesh s/o Ashok Pal,
Aged about 19 years,
Occupation: Service,
Resident of Mahendra Nagar,
Teka Naka, Nagpur.
3] Atmaram s/o Mohan Pal,
Aged 70 years,
Occupation: Service,
Resident of Mahendra Nagar,
Teka Naka, Nagpur.
4] Smt. Hiriyabai w/o Atmaram Pal,
Appeal is abated
against R.No.4 as
Aged about 60 years,
per Court's order Occupation: Household,
dtd. 26.8.14. Resident of Mahendra Nagar,
Teka Naka, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:18:26 :::
fa164.04.J.odt 2/4
5] Murlidhar s/o Deorao Tadas,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation: Driver, Resident of
Devi Nagar, Teka Naka,
Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.S. Khadse, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri R.J. Verma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE: 9 th
MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has partly allowed
Claim Petition No.59 of 1990 filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, by its judgment and order dated 31.10.2001. On account of
the death a compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- is required to be paid to the
dependents of the deceased along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum. The owner of the vehicle is before this Court in this first appeal.
2] Although the appellant owner of the vehicle filed written
statement, he did not enter the witness box nor did he examined the
driver of the offending vehicle, which is truck bearing registration
No.MTG 3334. The claimant, who is the father of the deceased, has
entered the witness box. The first information report and the spot
inspection report are placed on record, and marked as exhibit 57 and 58
respectively.
fa164.04.J.odt 3/4
3] In the light of the aforesaid position the point for
determination is as under:
i] Whether the claimants have proved negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing
registration No.MTG 3334 ?
ii] Whether the Tribunal was right in awarding the
compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum ?
4] On the aspect of negligence there was no eye witness.
The Tribunal has relied upon first information report at exhibit 57, and
spot inspection report at exhibit 58. The driver of the offending truck
was prosecuted for the offences under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving, and it is reported that
he has been prosecuted for such offences. The involvement of the
offending truck in the accident is not a fact which is disputed. In the
absence of any eye witness to the incident, the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur shall spring into action to shift the burden of proof upon the
driver of the offending vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle has
not been examined. In view of this, no fault can be found with the view
taken by the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash
fa164.04.J.odt 4/4
and negligent in driving the vehicle, and merely because the driver is
acquitted from prosecution of the offences that by itself will not
discharge him from the liability arising on account of dash of the
offending vehicle. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.
5] The Tribunal has taken monthly payment of the deceased to
Rs.1000/- and applying multiplicand of 17, the dependency has been
calculated. I do not find any error in such award of compensation of
Rs.1,53,000/-. Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly.
6] For the reasons recorded the first appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
7] If the appellant has deposited any amount in this Court the
same shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant as per the
decision of the Tribunal, and the claimant shall be at liberty to execute
the decree for the balance amount.
JUDGE
NSN
