Satish Namdeorao Ingole vs Anjum Parvin Wd/O Shakil Shah And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12783 Bom

                                 1                                        wp315.20.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                      WRIT PETITION NO.315/2020
           (Satish Namdeorao Ingole vrs. Anjum Parvin and others)
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           -
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                     Court's or Judge's orders
 appearances, Court's orders or directions
 and Registrar's orders
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Shri Y.S.Gorle, Advocate for petitioner
                           Shri B.S.Mandhare, Advocate for respondent


                           CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 07/09/2021

Heard Mr. Gorle, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mandhare, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2] The challenge in this petition is to the order below Exh. 14, dated 24.7.2019 passed in Claim Petition No. 790/2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for framing additional issues came to be rejected. The additional issues which were sought to be framed by the petitioner are as under;

"[i] Whether the respondent prove that said accident occurred due to fault and negligence on the part of the rider/owner/driver of Bajaj Discover Motorcycle No. MH-27-AT-6595, on who's deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider?

[ii] Whether the petitioners prove that said rider/owner/ driver of the Bajaj Discover Motorcycle No. MH-27-AT- 6595 have valid driving license at the time of accident and driving properly?

                                2                                  wp315.20.odt

 3]                The said application was rejected by the learned Tribunal

on the ground, that since the deceased was the pillion rider on the motor- cycle, the matter involved an issue of composite negligence and not of contributory negligence, and in view of what has been held in Khenyei vrs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors, 2015 (9) SCC 273, rejected the application.

4] The learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been able to point out any distinguishing factor which would take the present matter out of the purview of the judgment in Khenyei (supra), as it was an admitted position that the deceased was a pillion rider and therefore, the question of any contributory negligence on his part would not arise at all. That being the position there was no necessity to frame any additional issue. The application, therefore, has rightly been rejected. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Rvjalit