Bombay High Court
Kalpanabai ... vs Santosh Tulsiram Patil And Ors on 9 June, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO.274 OF 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.274 OF 2000
1. Kalpanabai w/o Sardarsing Salunki,
(Girase), Age: 28 years, Occ: Household.
2. Mohorarsing s/o Sardarsing Solunki,
(Girase) Age: 9 years, Occ: Education.
3. Deepikabai d/o Sardarsing Solunki,
(Girase) Age: 16 years, Occ. Education.
4. Reshamabai w/o Mohansing Salunki,
Age: 77 years, Occ: Nil.
5. Mohansing s/o Anandsing Solunki
(Girase), Age 80 years.
Occ.: Nil R/o All residing of
Dongargaon, Taluka Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar.
...APPELLANTS
(Ori.Claimants)
VERSUS
1. Santosh s/o Tulsiram Patil,
Age Major Occ: Business,
R/o. Nandurbar Plot No.37,
Saraswati Nagar, Wagheshwari,
Area, Nandurbar.
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2017 00:36:18 :::
2 FA NO.274 OF 2000
2. Anandsing s/o Gulabsing Girase,
Age 44 years, Occ: Driver,
r/o. Kashima Nagar, Behind
Vikas High School Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar.
3. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Dhule Division, Office
Dhule.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. R.C.Patil, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Mahesh Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. Chaitanya Deshpande, Adv., h/f Mr.C.R.Deshpande,
Advocate for respondent no.2.
Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent no.3.
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :JUNE 9th, 2017
***
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment
and award dated 16th February, 2000, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule, in Claim Petition no.168
of 1994.
3 FA NO.274 OF 2000
2. The present appellants had preferred the
aforesaid Claim Petition claiming compensation on account
of death of one Sardarsing Solanki. According to
appellants, deceased Sardarsing Solanki died in a vehicular
accident happened on 8.11.1993 having involvement of a
Jeep bearing registration No.MH-18-6931 and because of
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Jeep.
The learned Tribunal, after having assessed the oral and
documentary evidence brought before it, has dismissed the
petition. The Tribunal has held that the claimants have
failed in establishing that the deceased Sardarsing Solanki
died because of dash given to him by the jeep bearing
registration No. MH-18-6931. The Tribunal has also held
that deceased Sardarsing died because of his own
negligence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have
preferred the present appeal.
3. Shri R.C. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellants, strenuously urged that the learned Tribunal
has failed in appreciating the evidence of PW No.2 Brijlal
Ramdas Patil. Learned Counsel, taking me through the
4 FA NO.274 OF 2000
evidence of the said witness, submitted that the oral
testimony of the said witness fully establishes involvement
of Jeep bearing No. MH-18-6931 in occurrence of the
alleged accident and also further proves that the accident
happened because of rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the said Jeep. Learned Counsel submitted that
the Tribunal has grossly erred in not believing the
testimony of the said witness. Learned Counsel, therefore,
prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal
and, consequently, prayed for allowing the claim petition in
toto. Learned Counsel Shri Mahesh Patil appearing for
respondent no.1, and Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel
appearing for respondent no.3, supported the impugned
judgment. Both the learned Counsel submitted that a well
reasoned order has been passed by the Tribunal and no
interference is called for in the impugned order. Learned
Counsel submitted that from the evidence on record it is
writ large that Brijlal Ramdas Patil was a cooked up
witness brought by the appellants to substantiate their
false claims. Learned Counsel has submitted that the
Tribunal has rightly observed that such a witness cannot
be believed.
5 FA NO.274 OF 2000
4. I have carefully considered the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the
respective parties. I have also perused the impugned
judgment and evidence on record as well as the other
material placed on record.
5. Admittedly, the FIR does not disclose the
involvement of the Jeep bearing registration No. MH-18-
6931. The FIR further does not disclose that the alleged
accident happened and deceased Sardarsing received
injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the
aforesaid jeep. The contents of the FIR clearly reveal that
deceased Sardarsing himself was driving his motor cycle in
a zig-zag manner and because of his own negligence, he
suffered accidental death. Perusal of the testimony of
appellant no.1 Kalpanabai (PW 1) before the Tribunal
reveals that the information as about the accident was
given to her by PW No.2 Brijlal. If the said fact is to be
accepted, said Brijlal then, must have reported the said
6 FA NO.274 OF 2000
fact immediately to the Police also, however, the material
on record reveals that no such information was ever given
by the said Brijlal to the Police. In all the Police papers,
particularly the spot panchnama and the inquest
panchnama and other related documents, the story, as has
been canvassed subsequently by the appellants, is not
revealed. On careful perusal of evidence of Brijlal, I have
no doubt that the evidence of such a witness was not
believable and the Tribunal has rightly refused to rely upon
the testimony of the said witness. If the evidence of the
said witness Brijlal is kept aside, there remains no
evidence to substantiate the claim of the present
appellants. The appellants have utterly failed in proving
their claim that deceased Sardarsing died because of
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending jeep
or because of the dash given by the said Jeep to his motor
cycle.
6. After having considered the entire material on
record, it does not appear to me that the Tribunal has
7 FA NO.274 OF 2000
committed any error in dismissing the claim petition. The
Appeal, being devoid of substance, deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, without
any order as to the costs.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/274-00fa
