Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Transport Dhule ... vs Hiralal Tulshiram Patil on 12 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21786
337-17-FA.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.337 OF 2017
WITH
CA/12571/2017 IN FA/337 OF 2017
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule,
Through its Divisional Controller. ... Appellant
Versus
Hiralal Tulshiram Patil,
Age: 55 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. Ajang, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. ... Respondent
......
Mr. Narayan Y. Chavan, Advocate h/f Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate
for Appellant
Mr. M.G. Kochar, Advocate for Mr. B.R. Waramaa, Advocate for
Respondent
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 28 JULY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 AUGUST, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. This appeal is at the instance of the M.S.R.T.C. Dhule,
hereby taking exception to the judgment and award dated
31.03.2015 in M.A.C.P. No.1007 of 2009 filed by present
respondent on account of accidental death of his buffalo-calf.
337-17-FA.odt
{2}
BRIEF FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:
2. On 12.02.2008 at Jalgaon-Dhule Road, a bus bearing No.
MH-12/OH-8766 owned by present appellant and driven by its
employee Dipak, who was allegedly driving the bus rashly and
negligently, gave dash to a small buffalo-calf belonging to
respondent/original claimant. The said buffalo-calf wat hit at
her head and calf died on the spot. The FIR of the incident was
filed at Taluka Police Station, Dhule vide C.R.No.56 of 2008.
3. Respondent has set up the above claim before the
Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6,54,800/-.
Present appellant/original respondent appeared in the matter
and resisted the claim by filing the written statement.
4. The necessary issues were framed by the Tribunal, and
by judgment and award dated 31.03.2015, the claim petition
was partly allowed, directing respondent to pay compensation to
the tune of Rs.4,71,080/-, along with interest at the rate of 8%
per annum.
Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 31.03.2015, the
appellant/M.S.R.T.C. has taken exception to the above award by
filing the instant appeal on various grounds spelt out in the
appeal memo.
337-17-FA.odt
{3}
5. Learned counsel for the appellant questions the
impugned order on the ground that, the driver of the bus was
not responsible, and no fault ought to have been attributed to
him in absence of specific evidence to that effect. That, in fact,
the buffalo-calf suddenly came across the road and suffered. He
pointed out that, an inflated claim has been set up without
demonstrating ownership of the live stock. That, learned
Tribunal has awarded compensation without any concrete
foundation and it is primarily based on assumptions and
presumptions. That, the buffalo-calf was barely 1.5 years of age.
That, learned Tribunal has computed the compensation by
assuming that the buffalo-calf would grow into a fully matured
buffalo and would give sufficient milk, which would fetch good
income. Therefore, learned counsel urges for interference by
allowing the appeal.
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent/original
claimant supported the judgment by pointing out that, the driver
was rash and negligent and after thorough investigation, crime
has been registered against the driver. It is pointed out that the
age of the buffalo-calf was determined on the basis of the
postmortem report. Learned counsel took this Court through
337-17-FA.odt
{4}
paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the judgment and submitted that there
is no dispute that the calf was a she-buffalo. Considering the
duration of lactation and the expected lifespan, the learned
Tribunal has rightly computed the income the claimant would
have earned from the milk business. It is pointed out that, the
prevailing rate per liter of milk at that time was also taken into
account, and therefore, the learned counsel justifies the
quantum awarded by the Tribunal.
7. After hearing both sides and on going through the
papers, it is emerging that, there is no dispute that on
12.02.2008, an employee of the appellant was driving bus No.
MH-12-OH-8766 on the Jalgaon-Dhule road, and the buffalo-calf
suffered a head injury due to dash given by the said bus.
Admittedly, crime has been registered bearing No.56/2008. The
claimant, who filed the claim petition, set up a case that he is
entitled to compensation for the loss of income that the
deceased buffalo-calf would have yielded by giving milk. Apart
from that, various amounts have been claimed as compensation
under heads of funeral expenses, cost of litigation, etc. It
appears that claim of around Rs.6,50,000/- has been set up.
337-17-FA.odt
{5}
8. After going through the FIR (Exhibit-10) and the spot
panchanama (Exhibit-11), there are reasons to hold that the
employee of the appellant i.e. driver was responsible for the
accident. Death of the buffalo-calf admittedly had taken place
due to a dash given by the bus. There is no serious challenge
before the Tribunal about ownership of the buffalo-calf. Learned
Tribunal has considered the age reflected in the postmortem
report, which is usually taken as the basis in absence of concrete
proof of age. There is no denial that, had the calf lived its
natural life, it would have grown into a buffalo would have
given milk and served as a source of income for the claimant.
The rate per liter of milk prevailing in the vicinity where the
claimant lived appears to have been taken into account. There is
also no serious challenge to the same by the present appellant.
9. This Court has visited the paragraph wherein
calculations are reflected and is of the opinion that, the same are
reasonable and not exorbitant or exaggerated as is tried to put
forth before this Court. The price that the buffalo-calf would
have fetched, if it had been sold, was also taken into account
apart from the compensation awarded for funeral expenses.
Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity in the
337-17-FA.odt
{6}
impugned judgment and award so as to interfere in the same.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The First Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Civil Application No.12571 of 2017 is allowed in terms
of prayer clause 'B'. Respondent/original claimant is permitted
to withdraw the amount deposited by the Appellant/M.S.R.T.C.
with accrued interest thereon. Civil Application is disposed of
accordingly.
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE,
JUDGE
S P Rane
