Mahboob Sha S/O Lal Sha vs M.S.R.T.C., Thr Div. Controller, ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 803 Bom

Bombay High Court

Mahboob Sha S/O Lal Sha vs M.S.R.T.C., Thr Div. Controller, ... on 12 January, 2024

2024:BHC-AUG:949
                                                1                     67-CA.12111-23.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               67 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12111 OF 2023
                                            IN FA/192/2020

                                     MAHBOOB SHA S/O LAL SHA
                                               VERSUS
                         M.S.R.T.C., THR DIV. CONTROLLER, MSRTC, NANDED

                                                   ...
                              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Taher Ali Quadri.
                              Advocate for Respondent : Mr. M. K. Goyanka.
                                                   ...

                                             CORAM :       S. G. MEHARE, J.
                                             DATE :        12.01.2024

                   PER COURT :-


                   1.    Head the learned counsel for the applicant and learned

                   counsel for the contesting respondent.


                   2.    The present appeal is preferred on the ground that no

                   accident as such happened. There was inordinate delay of 12

                   days in lodging the FIR. However, the learned Tribunal did not

                   appreciate the facts correctly.


                   3.    Prima facie, it appears that the applicant has established

                   the permanent disablement arising out of the vehicular

                   accident and the involvement of ST bus. The appellant has

                   deposited Rs.78,000/- only out of Rs.94,000/-. The appellant

                   submitted that some amount was paid before the Tribunal.

                   Learned counsel for the appellant states that the NFL amount
                               2                     67-CA.12111-23.odt


of Rs.25,000/- was not paid. However, the Court did not pass

the order of amount including that NFL amount. Hence, it has

deposited Rs.78,000/-. He ought to have get the order

modified directing him to deposit money. Be that as it may,

Rs.78,000/- has been deposited. Considering the defence of

the applicant and the injury suffered to the applicant, the

following order is passed :

                              ORDER

(i) The application is partly allowed.

(ii) The applicant is allowed to withdraw Rs.40,000/-

from the amount deposited in this Court on the undertaking that he shall return the amount if the judgment is reversed.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

...

vmk/-