Bombay High Court
Yeshodabai Nana More And Ors vs Ltc Logistics Pvt. Ltd., And Ors on 19 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:22480
1231-21-FA.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1231 OF 2021
1. Yeshodabai W/o. Nana More
Age: 29 years, Occu.: labor,
R/o. Sikadar Colony, Misarwadi,
Aurangabad
2. Poonam D/o Nana More
Age: 7 years, Occu.: education,
R/o. as above
3. Shrdha D/o Nana More
Age: 5 years, Occu.: minor
R/o. as above
4. Pradnaya D/o Nana More
Age: 2 years, Occu.: Minor,
R/o. as above
(Appellant No.2 to 4 are minor and under
guardian of their mother i.e. appellant No.1) ... Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1. LTC Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
R/o. 27/28, crown plaza
Nilam Bata Road Faridabad
Faridabad - 122001 (Haryana State)
2. Akramkhan Aase Mohammad
Age: 28 years, Occu: Driver,
R/o. Nadka, Tq. Ramgad,
Dist. Alwar (Rajsthan State)
3. The Manager,
HDFC ERGO,
General Insurance Company Ltd.
Near Akashwani, Jalna Road,
Aurangabad
4. Anandabai W/o Prakash More,
Age: 62 years, Occu.: Housewife
R/o. Malegaon, Tq. Bhokardan,
Dist. Jalna .... Respondents
1231-21-FA.odt
{2}
......
Mr. K.A. Ingle, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. S.B. Ghute, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.3
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12 AUGUST, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19 AUGUST 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. The original claimants, who filed Claim Petition No. 692 of 2016
on account of the death of one Nama More in a road traffic accident
on 04.09.2016, are dissatisfied primarily on the sole ground that the
deceased was also held responsible for the accident and was found
negligent to the extent of 60%
FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:
2. On 04.09.2016, the deceased, Nana More, was riding his
motorcycle on the Bhokardan-Sillod Road. When he reached the
vicinity of village Malkheda, a container bearing No. HR-55M-0426
was given a dash to the motorcycle, as a result of which Nana More
died on the spot. Crime was registered against the driver of the
container. The claimants, who are the wife and children of the
deceased Nana More, filed an accident claim petition on the ground
1231-21-FA.odt
{3}
that the container driver was rash and negligent in his driving and
solely responsible for the accident. They also claimed that the
deceased, Nana More, was working as a mason, earning a salary of Rs.
15,000/- per month, and was the sole bread earner of the family. Due
to his untimely accidental death, the claimants lost their source of
income and, therefore, sought compensation under various heads.
3. "The claim was contested by the insurance company and the
other respondents. The Tribunal, by its order dated 21.09.2018, partly
allowed the claim, holding respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation. However, the Tribunal arrived at
a finding that, firstly, the deceased did not possess a driving licence to
ride the motorcycle, and moreover, he was on the wrong side of the
road at the time of the accident. Consequently, the deceased was held
60% liable and the driver of the container 40% liable for the accident.
Feeling aggrieved by above finding, claimants have preferred
the instant appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the
appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, Nana More, who died in
a road traffic accident. That, he was dashed by the driver of the
1231-21-FA.odt
{4}
container, and crime was duly registered against the driver. It is
further submitted that the claim petition was filed, but it was partly
allowed, and moreover, the Tribunal has fixed 60% responsibility on
the deceased instead of fixing 100% liability on the driver of the
container. Learned counsel also pointed out that there was no
evidence before the Tribunal suggesting 60% contributory negligence
on the part of the deceased, and therefore, the finding to that extent is
perverse. That, Exhibit 43 was not the sole evidence, which ought not
to have been considered.
5. Learned counsel further questions the computation made by the
learned Tribunal. According to him, the monthly income of the
deceased was considered by granting a notional income of Rs. 9,000/-.
Therefore, only 40% future prospects ought to have been added, and
thereafter, the deduction for contributory negligence ought to have
been made. However, according to him, the Tribunal committed an
error in deducting 60% contributory negligence, as reflected in the
chart in paragraph 22. Learned counsel for the appellants has also
sought reliance on Hon'ble Ape Court judgment in Mangla Ram V.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors. AIR 2018 SC 1900 and Jiju
Kuruvila and others V. Kunjujamma Mohan and others , AIR 2013 SC
2293.
1231-21-FA.odt
{5}
6. The main contesting respondents, as well as learned counsel for
the insurance company, supported the judgment by pointing out that,
while fixing responsibility for the accident and the issue of rashness
and negligence, the best evidence available was the spot panchanama.
That, here, the same has been duly considered. That, the Tribunal has
correctly recorded a finding of contributory negligence against both
the container driver and the deceased, Nana More. For all the above
reasons, they pray for the dismissal of the appeal.
7. In the light of above submissions, papers are visited.
Considering the nature of the objection regarding the finding of rash
and negligent driving and the fixing responsibility for the accident,
recourse was taken to the spot panchanama.
8. As submitted, the appellants are neither aggrieved nor
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation; however, what the
appellants take exception to is the finding of the Tribunal holding the
deceased 60% responsible, instead of holding the container driver
solely 100% responsible.
9. Here, along with FIR, copy of spot panchanama (Exhibit 43) is
placed on record. On visiting the same and considering the directions
1231-21-FA.odt
{6}
in which the vehicles were proceeding, it emerges that the deceased
was traveling towards Bhokardan, while the container was proceeding
towards Sillod from Bhokardan. Thus, the vehicles were proceeding in
opposite directions and were expected to maintain their own correct
sides of the road. Contents of spot panchanama show that, left side
being correct side and deceased ought to have maintained the same.
However, in view of the spot panchanama, it appears that the
deceased had moved onto the side of the road meant for vehicles
traveling in the opposite direction. Precisely taking this situation into
account, the Tribunal, in paragraph No. 12, after discussing the
circumstances of the road, recorded a finding that the deceased was
also negligent to the extent of 60%.
10. Perused the citations relied by the learned counsel for the
appellant. In case of Mangla Ram (supra), though the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed that, spot where motorcycle found lying after
accident cannot be basis to assume that it was driven in or around the
spot at relevant time. The case at hand is distinct. Here, the position of
the vehicle was not the primary consideration; rather, the direction in
which the vehicles were proceeding and the location of the accident
were taken into account and the conclusion has been drawn.
Therefore, the said ruling does not come into rescue of appellant.
1231-21-FA.odt
{7}
11. Another ruling in Jiju Kurivila (supra) also deals with the
position of vehicles after the accident as one of the circumstances for
fixing responsibility. Therefore, even this ruling cannot be relied upon
by the appellant. In the present case, on the strength of Exhibit 43, it
is clear that the deceased is also responsible, having gone onto the
wrong side of the road. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the
finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the deceased 60%
responsible.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants also raised an objection
regarding the calculation, specifically the deduction of 60% towards
contributory negligence, and asserted that while deducting the
amount for contributory negligence, the Tribunal ought to have first
added 40% towards future prospects, and only thereafter made the
deduction.
ORDER
(I) First Appeal is dismissed.
(II) No order as to costs.
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE,
JUDGE
S P Rane
