Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Anant Narayanrao Khelkar & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 286 Bom

                                                                      fa350.05


                                       1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                          First Appeal No. 350 of 2005


 Vidarbha Irrigation Development
 Corporation,
 through its Executive Engineer,
 Minor Irrigation Division,
 Akola.                                        .....           Appellant

                                    Versus


 1.     Anant Narayanrao Khelkar,
        aged about 42 years,
        occupation - Legal Practitioner,
        resident of Gore Apartment
        No.3, Birla Road, Jatharpeth
        Square, Akola.

 2.     Ashok Mahadeorao Sapkal,
        resident of Big Umar,
        near Railway Gate,
        Akola.

 3.     State of Maharashtra,
        through Collector, Akola.




::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 00:52:32 :::
                                                                          fa350.05


                                        2




 4.     Director of Insurance,
        Maharashtra State,
        New Administrative Building,
        Opp : Secretariat,
        Floor No.16 and 17,
        Mumbai-400 032.                           .....        Respondents.



                                  *****
 Mr. P.B. Patil, Adv., for the appellant.

 None for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

 Mrs. Naik, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.3 and 4.

                                      *****


                                 CORAM :        A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

                                 Date       :    1st March, 2017

 ORAL JUDGMENT:

01. By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 [for short, "the said Act"], the judgment of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola, dated 14th February, 2005 is under

challenge. By the said judgment, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum

of Rs.1,26,000-00 to the respondent no.1 on account of injuries

suffered by him.

fa350.05

02. On 17th January, 1996, the respondent no.1, who is a legal

practitioner, was a pillion rider on the scooter driven by one Mohanlal

Nathani. A jeep owned by the appellant and driven by respondent no.2

dashed the said scooter, resulting in the respondent no.1 sustaining

injuries. On the basis of aforesaid accident, the respondent no.1 filed

Claim Petition under Section 166 of the said Act seeking compensation

to the extent of Rs.5,50,000-00. By the impugned judgment, the

learned Member of the Claims Tribunal partly allowed the Claim

Petition and granted compensation of Rs.1,26,000-00. Being

aggrieved by the aforesaid adjudication, the appellant has challenged

the same, while the respondent no.1 has filed Cross-Objection seeking

enhancement in the amount of compensation.

03. Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted

that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the jeep

belonging to the appellant was being driven in a rash and negligent

manner is not supported by evidence. He submitted that the

respondent no.1 contributed to the said accident. He then submitted

that the disability of the respondent no.1 to the extent of fifteen per

cent has not been duly proved. It was urged that amounts granted

towards medical expenses were without documentary evidence. He,

therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the

fa350.05

Claim Petition deserves to be dismissed.

04. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent no.1

on 23rd February, 2017. There is no appearance on his behalf even

today. Mrs. Naik, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, appears for respondent

nos. 3 and 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties,

I have perused the records of the case and I have given due

consideration to the respective submissions.

05. Following point arises for consideration :-

Whether the Claim Petition filed by the respondent no.1 is liable to be dismissed?

06. In support of the claim for compensation, the respondent

no.1 examined himself at Exh.41 and deposed that the jeep owned by

the appellant and driven by respondent no.2 had come from the wrong

side and had dashed the scooter. Though this witness was cross-

examined, there is nothing material in his cross-examination to

discredit his version. Moreover, copy of the Spot Panchanama at

Exh.42 indicates that the driver of the jeep had turned the vehicle on

the right side without crossing the circle. Hence, said finding recorded

by the Claims Tribunal that the driver of the jeep was negligent does

not deserve to be interfered with.

fa350.05

07. The Claims Tribunal has thereafter considered the disability

of the respondent no.1 at fifteen per cent on the basis of Disability

Certificate at Exh.55. It has taken into consideration fifteen per cent

disability while determining the amount of compensation. The Doctors,

who treated the respondent no.1, have been examined at Exhs.54 and

57. It is on the basis of their deposition that the amount for medical

expenses has been granted. I, therefore, do not find any scope for

reducing the amount of compensation.

08. In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find that the Claim

Petition filed by the respondent no.1 is liable to be dismissed. The

point as framed is answered accordingly. As a result, the Appeal

stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Judge

-0-0-0-0-

|hedau|