Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Koushalyabai Shantilal Chavhan on 13 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:4106
1 fa2795.24 judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2795 OF 2024
WITH
CA/1509/2025 IN FA/2795/2024
WITH
CA/12311/2024 IN FA/2795/2024
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Through Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Tq. & Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. ...APPELLANT
(Orig. Respondent)
VERSUS
Koushalyabai Shantilal Chavhan,
Age : 52 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o : H.No. 352, Satara Tanda No. 1,
Satara Parisar,Chh. Sambhaji Nagar. ...RESPONDENT
(Orig. Claimant)
..............
Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Shaikh Kayyum Najir : Advocate for Respondent
.............
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Date of Reservation : 06.02.2025
Date of pronouncement : 13.02.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Present appeal is filed assailing judgment and award dated
12.07.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in
MACP No. 440 of 2022. Respondent/Original Claimant instituted MACP
No.440 of 2022 under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Deceased Shantilal Hari Chavhan was travelling by Mahindra
2 fa2795.24 judgment
Bolero Goods Carrier vehicle bearing registration No.MH-21-BH-4331. At
about 18.30 hours a ST Bus bearing registration No. No.MH-13-CU-6838
collided against Bolero Jeep. Deceased suffered injuries on account of
said accident. Deceased was aged about 52 years and labour by
occupation.
3. Respondent MSRTC refuted claim on the ground that an
accident occurred due to fault on part of Bolero Jeep driver and claim is
not maintainable against MSRTC.
4. The Tribunal, after considering rival submissions allowed
claim petition and directed respondent MSRTC to pay compensation of Rs.
5,00,000/- to claimant along with interest @ 6% p.a.
5. Mr. Bagul learned Advocate appearing for appellant submits
that Tribunal failed to interpret Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In
fact, the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of Bolero
jeep driver. The jeep in question gave dash to ST bus while its driver was
driving same cautiously. Tribunal has not applied appropriate multiplier
and granted excessive and exorbitant compensation.
6. Having considered submissions, apparently, present claim has
been instituted under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which
provides for fixed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in case of death in any
accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. Section 164 (2) exempts
Claimant from responsibility to prove negligence or default of owner of the
vehicle or any other person. Aforesaid provision has been brought into
statute book vide Amendment Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.04.2022.
Considering purport of aforesaid provision, once it is established that
death is occurred out of accident and arising out of use of motor vehicle,
liability of owner or insurer, as the case may be, is absolute without
3 fa2795.24 judgment
requirement of any proof of negligence. Fixed sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is
provided towards death of victim and Rs. 2.5 Lakhs in case of grievous
hurt.
7. In the present case, it is not disputed that ST Bus was
involved in accident. As such, liability of the MSRTC being owner of ST
Bus is absolute. In that view of the matter, submissions advanced on
behalf of appellant MSRTC are liable to be rejected. In result, order
passed by Tribunal cannot be faulted hence appeal deserves to be
rejected being sans merit.
8. In view of dismissal of Appeal, amount deposited by appellant
MSRTC be released in favour of Claimants along with accrued interest
thereon.
9. Pending Civil Applications, also stand disposed off in view of
disposal of appeal.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR )
JUDGE
mahajansb/
