Bombay High Court
Commandant, Guard Regimental Centre ... vs Pandhari S/O Lahanuji Thakre Dead, ... on 12 January, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:428
FA585.2012jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2012
Commandant, Guard Regimental
Centre (GRC), Kamptee Contonment ... Appellant
Area, Kamptee, District - Nagpur.
Versus
1. Pandhari s/o Lahanuji Thakre
since deceased (deleted by an order,
dated 12.08.2010)
2. Sau. Pushpa w/o Pandhari Thakre
Aged 40 years, Occupation : Household ... Respondents
3. Harshal s/o Pandhari Thakre
Aged 22 years, Occ. Students
4 Ku. Diksha d/o Pandhari Thakre
Aged about 18 years,
All residents of Patansaongi,
Taluka Saoner, District - Nagpur.
Mr. P.V. Navlani, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. G.D. Asole, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 07.11.2023.
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.01.2024.
JUDGMENT:
Heard finally by consent of both the learned counsel
for the parties.
(2) Being aggrieved by the award dated 30.07.2011
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in MACP
PAGE 1 OF 7
FA585.2012jud.odt
No.903/2006. The appellant original respondent has preferred this
appeal.
(3) Brief facts of the appeal are as under :
The respondents had filed a claim petition before
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, as his daughter Kum. Sweeti
Thakre, expired in motor accident on 06.07.2006 at about 16:15
hours. She was travelling as a pillion rider with her brother on his
Motorcycle Hero Honda and they were proceeding towards their house
at Patansaongi from Saoner. Near the outskirts of the Village
Mangaon, the vehicle of the appellant i.e. Military Trailer which was
coming from same direction gave a dash to the motorcycle, due to
which Sweeti was thrown in to air and had a fall due to which she
suffered grievous head injury and died on the spot. The incident was
reported to the Saoner Police Station and Crime was registered bearing
Crime No.121/2006 against the trailer Driver Harimohan Shriram. The
respondents claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on various counts.
(4) The appellant has denied the involvement of said
vehicle in said accident. It was the defence of appellant that three
persons were riding on the motorcycle without wearing helmet which
PAGE 2 OF 7
FA585.2012jud.odt
was driven in high speed and in a negligent manner and they were
going from the middle of the road.
(5) It is the case of appellant that on 06.07.2006, the
military vehicle was proceeding from Betul to Nagpur and near
Manegaon, the driver of the vehicle had given a hand signal to the
motorcycle. At the relevant time, one car was coming from opposite
direction as the appellant driver has given the signal, he overtook the
motorcycle safely. However, after 25 Kms., the vehicle was stopped by
police at Deogaon and has informed about the accident and
accordingly, the crime was registered against the driver of the military
vehicle.
(6) The appellant has stated that in an inhouse enquiry
conducted by the department, it was found that the offending vehicle
i.e. military vehicle was not involved in the accident and neither the
driver of the vehicle was in anyway negligent in his driving.
(7) It is further submitted that the owner and the
insurer of the motorcycle was not made party to the claim petition.
Without properly appreciating the evidence, the Claims Tribunal
PAGE 3 OF 7
FA585.2012jud.odt
passed impugned award dated 30.07.2011 and awarded the
compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- which includes the amount of
Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and interest
@ of 7.5% on the said amount.
(8) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that
the Tribunal has erred in placing reliance solely on the registration of
the FIR and other police investigation to come to the conclusion that
the military vehicle was involved in the accident. The petitioner has
examined the driver of the vehicle, his evidence clearly shows that
accident was not caused due to military vehicle and the appellant was
not liable to pay any compensation on account of injury sustained to
the deceased. Moreover, the owner of the motor vehicle as well as
insurer of the motor vehicle were not made party to the claim petition,
who are the necessary parties. It is not appreciated by the Tribunal
that three persons were seated on the motorcycle and the motorcycle
was driven in high speed and in negligent manner without wearing the
helmet. Hence, prayed to set aside the award passed by the trial Court
as there is no pleading, and no evidence that the vehicle was driven
negligently.
PAGE 4 OF 7
FA585.2012jud.odt
(9) Learned counsel for respondents opposed the
application stating that immediately after the incident, the vehicle was
seized, the FIR was registered against the driver of the vehicle. The
deceased died on the spot she came under the wheel of the trailer and
instead of taking care of the deceased, the appellant ran away from the
spot and he was stopped by police after 25 Kms. The evidence of the
witnesses proves that the accident took place because of the vehicle of
the appellant, hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
(10) Heard Mr. Navlani, learned counsel for appellant
and Mr. Asole, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
(11) The petitioner has denied the involvement of vehicle
in accident. The evidence of driver of vehicle itself proves the
involvement of vehicle. He has deposed that he saw the motorcycle
driven by the PW(1), he has mentioned that there were three persons
seating on the motorcycle and he has given signal by hand and
thereafter, after 20 Kms. from the spot, he was arrested. The driver
was remembering everything which is not possible without specific
circumstance. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of
the Delhi High Court in MAC.APP.592/2011, New India Assurance
PAGE 5 OF 7
FA585.2012jud.odt
Company Limited Vs. Harsh Mishra and Ors., in which it is held that
mere registration of crime is not enough to prove the negligence. In
case in hand, there is eye witness and involvement of vehicle is proved
through evidence of defence witnesses.
(12) The appellant has stated that the rash and negligent
act is not proved by the claimant as the witness has not stated about it.
It is the duty of the claimant to prove rash and negligent act of
respondent. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Surendeer Kumar Arora and anr. Vs.
Manoj Bisla and Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 552.
(13) On perusal of the claim petition, I found that it is
mentioned in petition that "They were going towards house at
Patansawangi from Saoner. Motorcycle rider was driving his
motorcycle on proper side of the road in slow speed. When they
reached in the outskirts of village Manegaon at that time an offending
vehicle Military Trailer was coming in same direction from Saoner
towards Nagpur in a very high speed, rash and negligently without
following traffic rules as such it gave a heavy dash to the motorcycle
from backside because of which deceased was thrown into air and
landed on the street and she sustained grievous head injury and died
PAGE 6 OF 7
FA585.2012jud.odt
on the spot". The claim petition is filed on affidavit. Pleading about
rash and negligent act are there in petition. The evidence of PW - 2
who is the eye witness and was driving the vehicle has also proves the
rash and negligent act of trailer driver as he has stated that the trailer
came in speed and it touched to him and he also received injury,
Sweeti the sister came under wheels of trailer and died there. He has
also received injuries. Rash and negligent act is pleaded and also
proved through eye witness.
(14) The crime was registered against the driver of the
vehicle. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is proved that the
accident took place because of said vehicle. Rash and negligent act is
also proved as the pillion rider thrown in the air and she came under
the vehicle of appellant. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered
the evidence and documents on record and awarded the
compensation, there is no need of any interference at the hands of this
Court, hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
(15) Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
[MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.]
Prity
Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane PAGE 7 OF 7
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/01/2024 15:03:16
