Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Sitadevi Wd/O Jitaram @ ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6957 Bom

1/3                                                                5 caf 4109.19.odt




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                 CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO.4109 OD 2019
                                    IN
                     FIRST APPEAL ST NO.22074 OF 2019
                  Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Amravati
                                           VS.
                         Smt. Sitadevi Wd/o Jitaram and others.
Office     Notes,   Office                        Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
Appearances,       court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
                             Shri Rohan R. Chhabra, Advocate for the appellant.
                             Shri P.R.Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.



                                         CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 30.04.2021.

Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Heard Shri Chhabra, learned Advocate for the appellant/MSRTC and Shri Agrawal, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

3. While staying the execution of the impugned judgment on 15th November, 2019 this Court has not imposed any condition to deposit any amount. Now the claimants want this Court to impose such conditions. They have relied upon two judgment filed as per pursis St.No.1/2021. They are as follows:- T.O.. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and others reported in 2008 (3) SCC 748 and

2/3 5 caf 4109.19.odt

A.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. Vs. K. Hemalatha and Ors reported in 2008 AIR (SC) 2851.

3. As against this, Shri Chhabra, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the claimants have joined the MSRTC by way of abundant precaution and there are no averments in the petition about the negligence of driver of MSRTC.

4. Shri Agrawal, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 admits this position. In spite of this MSRTC examined the driver as a witness. In the judgment the Court has not framed any issue about interse negligence on the part of driver of the matador on the one hand and the driver of MSRTC on the other hand. There are no observations about the theory put forward by the driver of MSRTC. However while passing the final order the present appellant was also held responsible jointly and severally.

5. Shri Chhabra, learned Advocate tried to distinguish the facts of those judgments from the fact of present case. Driver of one vehicle was the claimant whereas in the present case, the deceased was not driver of any of the vehicle and in fact he was occupant of the matador.

6. We are not aware whether the Insurance Company present respondent No.8 has either preferred an appeal or deposited the amount before the Tribunal. It

3/3 5 caf 4109.19.odt

is better to wait till respondent No.8 is served. Report says that notice has returned back. Hence appellant is directed to take steps for service on respondent No.8. Afterward, request for putting conditions to deposit decretal amount will be decided.

7. Stand over to 1st Week of July, 2021.

(S.M. Modak, J.)

Manisha