Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Transport Cor. vs 1. Smt. Jyoti @ Jyotirani And Anr. on 7 August, 2025
Author: Shivkumar Dige
Bench: Shivkumar Dige
2025:BHC-AS:35173
Shubhada S Kadam 9-FA-2465-2007-Judgment.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2465 OF 2007
with
CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.25002 OF 2007
Maharashtra State Road Transport )
Corporation )
Having its office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. )
Nair Marg, Bellasis Road, Bombay Central, ) Appellant
Bombay - 400 008 ) ... (Org. Respondent)
Versus
1 Smt. Jyoti @ Jyotirani )
Pandharinath Patil, Age 22, )
Occ. Household )
2 Shardul Pandharinath Patil )
Age : 1 yrs., Occu. Nil. )
)
No.2 Minor, through his G.A.L. )
mother Peti. No.1. )
Both R/o : House No. 4149 ) Respondents
Shaniwar Peth, Mirja, Dist - Sangli )... (Org. Claimants)
Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali i/b. G.S.Hegde & Associates, Advocates for the
Appellant.
Mr. Tejpal Ingle with Ms. Vrunali Vilankar, Advocates for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 7th AUGUST, 2025.
Judgment :
SHUBHADA 1. The appellant/Corporation being aggrieved has filed appeal
SHANKAR
KADAM against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA Tribunal, Sangli (for short "the Tribunal"). Respondent Nos.1 and
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2025.08.14
12:56:34 +0530 2/claimants have also filed cross-objection for enhancement of
1/9
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:56 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 9-FA-2465-2007-Judgment.doc
compensation. As the appeal and cross-objection are against the same
judgment and order, I am deciding the both, by this common judgment.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation
that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased
as he was driving the scooter in the middle of the road and after seeing
the S. T. Bus, he tried to take it on left side of the road and accident
occurred. The driver of the Corporation examined himself to prove the
negligence of the deceased and he has stated that the accident occurred
due to negligence of the deceased but this fact is not considered by the
Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimants are not
entitled for enhancement of the income of the deceased as 5th Pay
Commission cannot be applied to the deceased. Hence, requested to
allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-objection filed by the claimants.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondents-claimants
that the deceased with his wife was proceeding on the scooter by the left
side of the road. Claimant No.1-wife of the deceased was a pillion rider.
The bus gave dash by coming from the opposite direction. The bus was
in high and excessive speed. After giving dash, the bus dragged the
scooter of the deceased up to 80 feet and uprooted 10 to 12 guard
stones. Learned counsel further submitted that the eye witness has been
examined to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending S.T.Bus.
Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was serving as a
teacher. The Tribunal has miscalculated his salary. The 5th Pay
2/9
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:56 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 9-FA-2465-2007-Judgment.doc
Commission was applied from 1st January 1996 and the accident occurred
on 7th January 1998. The Tribunal should have considered the salary as
per 5th Pay Commission but it was not considered. The Tribunal has not
awarded future prospects, consortium amount is awarded on lower side
and wrong multiplier is applied. Hence, requested to allow the cross-
objection and dismiss the appeal filed the Corporation.
4 I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and
order passed by the Tribunal.
5. It is the claimants' case that on 7th January 1998, the
deceased- Pandharinath Patil was proceeding on his scooter along with
claimants to Kolhapur. The deceased was driving the scooter in normal
speed and was proceeding on the left side of the road. At the relevant
time, one S.T.Bus bearing No.MH-12-R-8072 came from the opposite
direction in high and excessive speed. The said bus came on wrong side
of the road and gave dash to the scooter of the deceased. At that time,
claimants were thrown away from the scooter on the southern side. The
said S.T. Bus carried the scooter with the deceased up to 80 feet. The
right wheel of the S.T.Bus ran over the body of the deceased. Due to
dash, the deceased died on the spot. An offence was registered against
the driver of the S.T.Bus.
6. To prove the negligence of the driver of the offending bus, the
claimants have examined claimant No.1-Jyoti Patil at Exhibit-20. She has
stated that her husband was riding the scooter in slow speed and on the
3/9
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:56 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 9-FA-2465-2007-Judgment.doc
left side of the road. The said S.T.Bus came from opposite side and gave
dash to the scooter and dragged the scooter and her husband with the
bus up to 80 feet and halted there. She has further stated that the S..T.
Bus has also given dash to the guard stones and due to that, 10 to 12
guard stones were uprooted from its places. Even then, the driver could
not control the S.T.bus and went towards the tree. Due to dash, the said
tree was also broken and the S.T. Bus stopped there. In cross-
examination, she has admitted that the width of the road was 20 feet. She
has denied the suggestion that the scooter was going on the middle of the
road and the speed of the scooter was 40 to 45 km. per hour.
7. To prove the negligence of the driver of the S.T. Bus, the
claimants have examined PW5- Sharad Patil. He has stated that he saw
the accident between the scooter and the S.T.Bus. He has stated that the
scooter was going by left side of the road and the speed was 20 to 30 kms
per hour. The S.T.Bus was in high speed. He has further stated that the
S.T. bus went towards the side of the scooter and gave dash to the
scooter. He has further stated that after giving dash to the scooter, the
S.T. Bus went ahead and gave dash to 4-5 trees as well as 10-12 guard
stones and then went and dashed one tree and stopped there. In cross-
examination, he has stated that he is not able to tell the scooter number
or the S.T. Bus number.
8. To prove their defense, the appellant-Corporation has
examined the driver of the S.T.Bus- DW1-Shri. Mahadev Kate. He has
4/9
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:56 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 9-FA-2465-2007-Judgment.doc
stated that he was proceeding from Kolhapur to Sangli. At that time, he
saw one scooter was coming from Sangli Side and there was a couple
with child travelling on that scooter. At that time, there was oil spilled on
the road at Halondi Fata. The speed of the scooter was 65-70 kms per
hour. The scooter came at the place were the oil was spilled on road and
wobbled. At that time, the wife of the scooter rider thought that the scooter
would fall down, therefore, she along with the child jumped from the
scooter. Due to that, the scooter-rider lost the balance of the scooter and
the scooter speedily came towards the left side of his S.T.Bus and gave
dash. This witness immediately applied brakes and even then the S.T.Bus
went ahead for some distance. The said scooter in a spur of moment
came towards his S.T.bus and accident took place. This witness tried to
narrate to the police about the actual incident but the police were not
ready to hear him. When his signature was obtained, at that time, the
police did not allow him to read the contents of the letter. He has further
stated that had the wife of the scooter rider not jumped, the said accident
would not have occurred. In cross-examination, he has stated that he has
not informed the police about the accident. He admits that Exhibit-26
bears his signature, he has not made complaint to anybody that his
signature was forcibly obtained by the police. He has further stated that
when panchanama was prepared, at that time, he was present there. He
denied the suggestion that due to dash by the S. T. Bus to the guard
stones, the guard stones were uprooted and thereafter the S.T. Bus gave
5/9
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:56 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 9-FA-2465-2007-Judgment.doc
dash to the tree and stopped at 60 feet away from the place of the
accident. He has stated that his S.T. Bus halted 7 to 8 feet from the place
of accident.
9. The Corporation has examined DW2- Vijay Shinde, Conductor
of the bus. He has stated the same facts as stated by DW1.
10. While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has
observed that the defense taken by the S.T. Bus driver is not proper and
believable and the same is an afterthought.
11. The spot panchanama shows that the S.T. Bus was stopped
after 60 feet from the place of accident. The contents of the spot
panchanama falsifies the evidence of the driver that after the accident, the
S.T. Bus halted 7 to 8 feet from the place of incident. It appears from the
spot panchanama that the house of PW2- Shri.Sharad Patil is situated
near the incident spot. It supports the claimants case that the said
S.T.Bus came from opposite side and gave dash to the scooter and
dragged the scooter and her husband with the bus up to 80 feet and
halted there, hence, I do not find infirmity in the observations of the
Tribunal and I do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the
Corporation that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of
the deceased.
12. It is claimants case that the deceased was serving as teacher.
To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants have examined PW2-
Vasant Tapase. He has stated that the deceased was working as teacher
6/9
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:56 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 9-FA-2465-2007-Judgment.doc
in Sou Laxmibai Pandurang Patil Vidhyalay Sangliwadi and as per the
record, in December 1997, the salary of the deceased was Rs.4910/- per
month. The said salary was as per 4th Pay Commission. He further stated
that after 5th Pay Commission, the monthly salary of the deceased comes
to Rs.7125/-. Nothing elicited in the cross-examination of this witness.
13. The claimants have examined PW4-Ashok Londhe, attached
to Sou.Laxmibai Pandurang Patil Vidyalaya, Sangliwadi. He has stated
that as per 5th Pay Commission, the pay was fixed at the scale of
Rs.5500-9000 and the deceased would have received salary of
Rs.12,651/- as per 5th Pay Commission. The salary certificate is at Exhibit-
55( page-28-A). Nothing elicited in cross-examination of this witness.
14. While dealing with the income of the deceased, the Tribunal
has considered monthly income of the deceased at Rs.11,530/- ,
thereafter, the Tribunal has deducted 50% from it. I am unable to
understand the observations of the Tribunal about deduction of 50%
amount. The salary certificate of the deceased is produced on record at
Exhibit-55(Page 28-A) shows that in December 1997, deceased was
getting salary of Rs.7125/- as per 5th Pay Commission and there was
deduction, which is at Exhibit-57. As per 5th Pay Commission, salary of the
deceased was Rs.10,292/-. I am considering the same.
15. The Tribunal has awarded consortium amount on lower side.
As per the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), each claimant is entitled
7/9
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:56 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 9-FA-2465-2007-Judgment.doc
for Rs.48000/- as consortium amount, Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate and
Rs.18000/- for funeral expenses.
16 Considering the above calculations, the claimants are entitled
for following compensation :
Particulars Rs. Amount
Annual Income (Rs.10,292/- x 12) Rs. 1,23,504.00
50% future prospects Rs. 61,752.00
Total Rs. 1,85,256.00
1/3rd deduction towards personal Rs. 61752.00
expenses
Total Rs. 1,23,504.00
Rs.1,23,504/- x 15(multiplier) Rs. 18,52,560.00
Consortium (Rs.48,000/- x 2 (claimants)) Rs. 96,000.00
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000.00
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000.00
Damages to Scooter Rs. 10,000.00
Total Compensation Rs. 19,94,560.00
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,70,000/-, if this amount is
deducted from the amount of Rs.19,94,560/- considered by this Court, it
comes to Rs.11,24,560/-. The claimants are entitled for this amount.
17. In view of above, I pass the following order :
ORDER
(1) First Appeal No.2465 of 2007 is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
Shubhada S Kadam 9-FA-2465-2007-Judgment.doc
(2) Cross Objection Stamp No.25002 OF 2007 is allowed.
(3) The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.11,24,560/-@ 7.5% interest per annum from the date
of filing claim petition till realisation of the amount. Out of
this amount, Rs.1,32,000/- is consortium amount, the
claimants are entitled @ 7.5% interest per annum on this
amount from 1st November 2017 till realisation of the
amount.
(4) The appellant-Corporation shall deposit the enhanced
amount along with accrued interest thereon within six
weeks from the receipt of this order.
(5) The claimants are permitted to withdraw the enhanced
amount along with accrued interest thereon.
(6) The statutory amount in First Appeal No.60 of 2016 be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest
thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per
Rule.
(7) The claimants shall pay deficit court fees on enhanced
amount, if any, as per Rule.
(8) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
