Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Shri. Vinayak Dnyaneshwar Borate
2021 Latest Caselaw 12193 Bom

                                                                                     FAST-18614-18.doc

BDP-SPS-TAC


 BHARAT


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 DASHARATH
 PANDIT

 Digitally signed by



                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 BHARAT
 DASHARATH
 PANDIT
 Date: 2021.09.03
 12:52:18 +0530



                                        FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18614 OF 2018
                                                       WITH
                                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4151 OF 2018
                                                        IN
                                        FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.18614 OF 2018


                       Maharashtra State Road
                       Transport Corporation                              ....Appellant
                             V/s
                       Shri Vinayak Dnyaneshwar Borate                    .....Respondent

                       Mr. Dhnanjayrao D. Rananavare for the Appellant.
                       Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye for the Respondent.

                                            CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                             DATE:    AUGUST 31, 2021

                       P.C.:-

                       1]       By consent, appeal is taken up for final disposal.



                       2]       Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for

                       Respondent.



                       3]       Respondent/claimant claimed to have been riding a motor-cycle

that met with accident with the State Transport Bus bearing

Registration No. MH-12-R-9998, as the said bus hit the claimant from

FAST-18614-18.doc

backside. Accident took place on 16th November, 2005. In the

accident, claimant suffered serious injuries and as such lodged a claim

petition under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said claim

petition came to be allowed vide judgment dated 6th May, 2017. As

such, this appeal by the Appellant - Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation.

4] Counsel for the Appellant while assailing the judgment on merit

would urge that (a) case of the claimant of negligence on the part of

the bus driver has been wrongly inferred, particularly when claimant

himself was carrying milk Cans on two wheeler and lost balance,

(b) award of compensation passed has evaluated income of the

claimant to the tune of Rs 5000/-that too without any material to that

effect on record and (c) award of compensation towards medical

reimbursement is also unreasonably on higher side.

5] The learned Counsel for the claimant would support the

judgment impugned as according to him, police papers are produced

by the claimant in support of his claim in addition to disability

certificate and the claimant has also examined doctor in support of the

FAST-18614-18.doc

same. As such, he sought dismissal of the appeal.

6] Considered rival submissions.

7] Occurrence of incident in which bus owned by the Appellant was

involved on 16th November, 2005 is not a fact in dispute. The driver

of the Appellant's bus was booked in Crime No. 209/2005 for the

offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C. & Section

184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, it could be inferred that

driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the bus owned by the Appellant was

booked for rash and negligent driving. As far as issue of proof of

negligence on the part of bus driver is concerned, the claimant, the eye

witness of the incident, has examined himself to establish his case. He

has in categorical terms deposed about the dash given by the bus from

backside which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Police

papers and the testimony of the claimant has reposed confidence in

the case put-forth by the claimant. Since initial burden is discharged

by the claimant, it was for the Appellant to rebut the same by

examining bus driver, which appellant has failed to do.

FAST-18614-18.doc

8] In the aforesaid backdrop, findings on the issue of rash and

negligent driving by driver of the bus owned by the Appellant for the

purpose of determining compensation under the provisions of Motor

Vehicles Act, appears to be quite justified.

9] So far as issue on quantum of income is concerned, claimant has

come out with a case that at the age of 22 years, he suffered accident

and was earning about Rs 15,000/- per month from his agricultural

business.

10] As the claimant has failed to bring any documentary evidence to

support his contention, the Court proceeded to consider monthly

income of the claimant to the tune of Rs 5000/- per month having

regard to his nature of business as that of milkman. Considering his

age to be of 22 years as inferred from the documents brought on

record, the Court below has rightly applied multiplier of 18 and

proceeded to award compensation of Rs 4,32,000/- on account of loss

of future earning by considering 40% of permanent disability.

11] Apart from above, the Tribunal has awarded amount of

FAST-18614-18.doc

Rs 3,68,231/- towards treatment, hospitalization, medicines,

transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenses. The

amount on account of hospital charges, medicines charges and

travelling is shown to be 3,53,231/-, whereas amount incurred on

account of special diet is shown to be Rs 15,000/-. Non-pecuniary

damages i.e. towards pain, suffering and trauma are assessed at

Rs 20,000/- and loss of income during treatment period is assessed at

Rs 36,600/-. The award of compensation is based on analytical

discussion of the evidence, oral and documentary brought on record.

That being so, total award of compensation to the tune of

Rs 8,56,831/-, in my opinion, appears to be quite justified.

12] No illegality could be noticed in the judgment impugned.

Appeal as such fails and same stands dismissed. As a consequence of

dismissal of appeal, pending application for grant of stay also stands

disposed of.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )