Bombay High Court
M.S.R.T.C., Thr. The Div. ... vs Smt. Shila Jagdamba Pal And 5 ... on 12 September, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
FA 560.06.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.560 OF 2006
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through the Divisional
Controller, Buldana Division,
Buldana. .. APPELLANT
.. VERSUS ..
1] Smt. Shila Jagdamba Pal,
Aged about 36 years,
Occupation-Household.
2] Ku. Roshani Jagdamba Pal,
Aged 16 years,
Occupation-Student.
3] Deepak Jagdamba Pal,
Aged about 14 years,
Occupation-Student.
4] Ku. Gayatri Jagdamba Pal,
Aged about 9 years,
Occupation-Nil.
5] Vishwanathsing Shivnatsing Pal,
Aged about 73 years,
Occupation-Nil.
6] Sau. Rajrani Vishwanathsingh Pal,
Aged about 68 years,
Occupation-Nil.
Claimant Nos.2 to 4 Minors through
Guardian Claimant No.1, All residents
of Sambhaji Nagar, At Taluka and
District-Buldana. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Shri A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for Appellant,
None for Respondents.
..........
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:12:43 :::
FA 560.06.odt 2
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 12, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Buldana in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.22/2001. By the said judgment and award, tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.8,03,892/- from the date of
petition till its realization.
2] The facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated
in brief as under :
(i) Deceased Jagdamba Vishwanathsingh Pal
was husband of respondent no.1, father of respondent nos.2
to 4 and son of respondent nos.5 and 6. He was 35 years
old and serving in police department as a constable.
(ii) On 25.10.2000 at around 1.30 pm,
Jagdamba was coming towards Buldana on a motorcycle
driven by Mohammad Sufiyan Mohammad Sultan. He was a
pillion rider at the relevant time. S.T. Bus bearing No.MH-
31/9825 came in a high speed and gave a forceful dash to
the motorcycle. As a result of dash, both rider and pillion
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:12:43 :::
FA 560.06.odt 3
rider sustained multiple injuries. Jagdamba was shifted to
the hospital and succumbed to the injuries while under
medical treatment.
(iii) Accident was reported to Police Station.
The claimants filed an application under section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
against the owner of S.T. Bus. It was the contention of
claimants that Jagdamba was drawing Rs.6,089/- per month
as salary. He was the sole bread winner in family and
claimants were dependents on him. Due to untimely death
of the only earning member in family, they suffered mental
shock and financial loss.
3] Respondent in the petition/appellant filed written
statement (Exh.11) and resisted the claim. The defence of
M.S.R.T.C. was of total denial. It was submitted that
accident occurred as rider of motorcycle was rash and
negligent in riding the motorcycle and in an attempt to
overtake S.T. Bus, he caused accident. Another submission
was that owner and insurer of motorcycle are not joined as
parties and for non-joinder of necessary parties, petition
deserves to be dismissed. According to respondent,
compensation claimed was on higher side and prayed for
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:12:43 :::
FA 560.06.odt 4
dismissal of claim petition with costs.
4] Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, tribunal
framed issues at (Ex.15). Claimants examined father of the
victim (claimant no.5) as a solitary witness in support of
their pleadings. They placed reliance on police papers to
establish the liability of driver of S.T. Bus for accident.
5] The owner examined its driver Bhimrao Narayan
Vasatkar (DW-2) to prove that rider of motorcycle was rash
and negligent and responsible for accident. On the basis of
evidence adduced by the parties and considering the
submissions made on their behalf, tribunal found that
accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of S.T.
Bus by its driver and held that claimants would be entitled
to Rs.8,03,892/- towards compensation. It is this order of
awarding compensation which is the subject matter of
present appeal.
6] The learned counsel for appellant raised two fold
issues. The first submission is that accident occurred due to
rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its driver and
owner and insurer of motorcycle have not been joined as
parties to the petition. Learned counsel submitted that from
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:12:43 :::
FA 560.06.odt 5
the police papers it can be made out that it was head on
collision and the tribunal committed an error in holding the
driver of S.T. Bus responsible for accident.
7] Admittedly, Vishwanathsing Shivnathsing Pal, a
solitary witness examined on behalf of the claimants was
not an eyewitness to the accident. The driver of S.T. Bus
Bhimrao Vasatkar stated in his evidence that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by
its rider. It can be seen from the facts elicited in his cross-
examination that charge-sheet was submitted by police
against him. He admits that he did not lodge complaint to
police or superiors to show that he was involved in a false
case and false charge-sheet has been filed against him.
8] On perusal of FIR (Exh.20), spot panchanama
(Exh.21), inquest panchanama (Exh.22), charge-sheet
(Exh.23) and postmortem report (Exh.26), it is apparent
that accident took place not because of rash and negligent
driving of motorcycle on which Jagdamba was proceeding as
a pillion rider, but it took place due to rash and negligent
driving of S.T. Bus. Respondent did not examine eyewitness
to the accident.
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:12:43 :::
FA 560.06.odt 6
9] It is pertinent to note that accident occurred at
1.30 pm. From the charge-sheet, it can be seen that
eyewitnesses were available and they have seen the
accident. In such circumstances, the evidence of driver of
S.T. Bus would not help the owner to absolve from the
liability of payment of compensation.
10] So far as quantum of compensation is concerned,
it is not in dispute that deceased was serving as a police
constable. There is no serious dispute to the fact that
claimants were dependents on him. The salary of deceased
as Rs.6,089/- per month has been proved. He was 35 years
old at the relevant time. Considering the age, dependency,
annual income and loss suffered by the claimants due to
untimely death of the only earning member of family, this
court finds that the tribunal has awarded just, fair and
reasonable compensation. As such, no interference is
warranted in this appeal. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) First Appeal No.560/2006 stands dismissed.
(ii) No costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
