Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Mrs Surekha Hanumant Deshmukh & ... on 29 March, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NOS.841 & 842 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.841 of 2005
The State of Maharashtra
Through, the Suptd. of Police,
Osmanabad.
...APPELLANT
(Ori.Respondent No.3)
VERSUS
1. Surekha w/o Hanumant Deshmukh,
Age 35 yrs. Occp. Household
R/o. at present Osmanabad.
2. Sarika D/o. Hanumant Deshmukh
Age 18 yrs. occp. Education,
r/o as above.
3. Mahesh Hanumant Deshmukh,
Age 15 yrs. occp. and r/o as above
M/U/G of claimant no.1.
4. Digambar Gyanba Deshmukh,
Age 60 yrs. occp. nil, r/o as above.
5. Anusaya w/o Digambar Deshmukh,
Age 35 yrs. Occp. Household,
R/o. as above,
Dist. Osmanabad.
...Petitioners
(Ori.Claimants No.1 to 5)
6. Mr.K.Mani s/o Karuppannan
Age Major, Occp. Business,
r/o 146-A, South Nalliyam Palayan
Velur, P.O.P., Velur, Tq. Dist. Namakkal
Tamil Nadu State.
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:57:39 :::
2 FA NOS.841 & 842 of 2005
7. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Namakkal (Tamil Nadu), through the
Div. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. 442, West Mangalwar Peth,
Solapur.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.defendants No.1 and 2)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.842 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
Through, the Suptd. of Police,
Osmanabad.
...APPELLANT
(Ori.Respondent No.3)
VERSUS
1. Janabai w/o Prabhakar Galande,
Age 45 yrs. Occp. Household,
r/o Sukta Bhoom Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Jaiprakash Prabhakar Galande,
Age 19 yrs., occp. Education,
r/o as above.
3. Vaishali d/o Prabhakar Galande,
Age 18 yrs. occp. and r/o as above.
4. Dattatrya Prabhakar Galande,
Age 22 yrs. occp. and r/o as above.
5. Anita w/o Mahadeo Kalsule,
Age 24 yrs. occp. Household
r/o Mankeshwar Tq. Paranda
Dist. Osmanabad.
...Petitioners
(Ori.Claimants No.1 to 5)
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:57:39 :::
3 FA NOS.841 & 842 of 2005
6. Mr.K.Mani s/o Karuppannan
Age Major, Occp. Business,
r/o 146-A, South Nalliyam Palayan
Velur, P.O.P., Velur, Tq. Dist. Namakkal
Tamil Nadu State.
7. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Namakkal (Tamil Nadu), through the
Div. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. 442, West Mangalwar Peth,
Solapur.
...RESPONDENTS
(Ori.defendants No.1 and 2)
ig ...
Mr.R.B.Bagul, AGP for appellant State in both
the appeals.
Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent
Nos. 1 to 5 in both the appeals.
Respondent no.6 served.
Ms.Shreyu Mounas, Adv., h/f Shri V.N.Upadhye,
Adv., for respondent no.7 in both the
appeals.
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : March 29th, 2016
***
JUDGMENT:
1. Since both the aforesaid appeals are arising out of
a common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal at Osmanabad in MACP Nos.212/1999 and
232/1999, both the appeals are decided by this common
judgment.
4 FA NOS.841 & 842 of 2005
2. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 in First Appeal No.841/2005
had preferred MACP No.232/1999, claiming compensation on
account of accidental death of one Hanmant Digamber
Deshmukh whereas respondent nos. 1 to 5 in First Appeal
No.842/2005 had filed another claim petition No.212/1999 on
account of accidental death of one Prabhakar Dashrath
Galande.
3. Deceased Hanmant Digamber Deshmukh and
Prabhakar Dashrath Galande both were Police Constables and
suffered death in an accident having involvement of a Police
Van bearing No.MH/12/9071 and Truck bearing
No.TN/28/D/7788. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
held that the accident in question happened because of
negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e.
the Police Van and the truck and thus, directed compensation
to be paid by the owner and insurer of both the aforesaid
vehicles in equal proportion.
4. In the present appeals, the appellant State has
taken exception to the finding recorded by the Tribunal
whereby it has held the Driver of the Police Van also
responsible for occurrence of the accident in question and the
consequent direction to pay half of the compensation awarded.
Shri R.B.Bagul, learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellant
State, submitted that despite there being any evidence on
record, showing any negligence on the part of the Driver of the
Police Van, the Tribunal has held the Driver of the Police Van
also guilty for occurrence of the alleged accident. Learned
A.G.P. further submitted that the original claimants have not
brought on record any evidence to show the negligence on the
5 FA NOS.841 & 842 of 2005
part of the driver of the Police Van in occurrence of the alleged
accident. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that neither the
FIR has been duly proved by the original claimants nor the spot
panchnama was proved by them. In such circumstances,
according to the learned A.G.P., the Tribunal has erred in
relying on the contents of the FIR and the spot panchnama and
has wrongly held that the Driver of the Police Van was negligent
in plying the vehicle involved in the accident in question at the
time when the alleged accident happened. The learned A.G.P.,
therefore, prayed for setting aside the judgment and award to
the extent it fastens liability on the present appellant to pay 50
per cent of the total compensation awarded to respondent nos.
1 to 5 in both the present appeals.
5. Shri Mukul Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 1 to 5 in both the appeals, supported the
reasons recorded by the Tribunal in recording a finding that in
occurrence of the alleged accident, the rashness and negligence
on the part of the Driver of the Police Van is also responsible in
equal proportion along with the driver of the offending truck.
6. I have carefully perused the common judgment and
award impugned in the present appeals. In paragraph No.16
of the judgment, the learned Tribunal has made the following
observations:
"16. The recitals in the spot panchnama show that
tar road was about 30 feet wide and there was turn near
the place of the accident. The two vehicles were running
in opposite directions. The road was sufficiently side
(wide) to enable safe overtaking of crossing of two
vehicles. The recitals in the spot panchnama also
indicate that both the vehicles were almost on middle of
6 FA NOS.841 & 842 of 2005
the tar road. None of the vehicles was by the side of the
road or on Kacha road. There was almost head on
collision between the two vehicles on a road which was
about 30 feet wide. It is also seen that, there were tyre
marks at some length at the place of the accident and
that indicates that both the drivers had applied braks
soon before the head on collision. The presence of tyre
marks of both the vehicles were running at more than
moderate speed. None of the vehicles was stopped soon
before the accident. None of the vehicles was taken to
the side of the road to avoid head on collision. Even it is
held that the truck was not proceeding by proper side, the
driver of the police van could have avoided the accident
either by stopping the vehicle on left side of the road or
by taking the vehicle to extreme right side. However,
that did not happen. Thus the circumstantial evidence on
record shows that none of the drivers had taken
reasonable care and caution in fact it appears that both
the drivers were rash and negligent and they did not even
care to stop the vehicles soon before the accident. "
7. On perusal of the aforesaid observations, it does not
appear to me that the Tribunal has committed any error in
holding the driver of the Police Van also responsible for
occurrence of the alleged accident. The objection raised by
the learned A.G.P. that the contents of the FIR and the spot
panchnama were not proved by the original claimants by
examining the relevant witnesses on the said point does not
hold any water since it is settled law that no strict rule of
Evidence Act or Code of Civil Procedure can be applied in
conduct of the Motor Accident Claim Petitions. As has been
observed by the learned Tribunal in para 16 of its judgment,
reproduced here-in-above, both the vehicles were running at
the relevant time at more than the moderate speed and were
plying their respective vehicles without keeping any adequate
margin from the middle line of the road. I further agree with
the conclusion recorded by the learned Tribunal that the alleged
7 FA NOS.841 & 842 of 2005
accident was head on collision between the Police Van and the
offending truck. In the circumstances, merely because the
driver of the offending truck only has been prosecuted in
connection with the accident in question, cannot preclude the
Tribunal from recording a finding on the basis of evidence
brought before the Tribunal, holding the driver of the Police Van
also responsible for occurrence of the alleged accident. I do
not find that any incorrect conclusion has been recorded by the
Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in the present
appeals.
The appeals are devoid of any substance and deserve to
be dismissed. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
a) Both the First Appeals (Nos.841/2005 and
842/2005) stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
b) Respondent nos. 1 to 5 in both the appeals i.e. the
original claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited in this Court by the appellant along with the interest
accrued thereon.
c) Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/841-842-05fa
