[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Kamlabai W/O Ramesh Bhagde And ... on 1 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5088
1 fa1149.2019(c).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1149/2019
The Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Chandrapur Division,
Chandrapur, through its Divisional
Controller, Chandrapur. ... Appellant
(Ori. Respondent)
- Versus -
1. Smt. Kamalabai Ramesh Bhagade,
age 42 Yrs., Occu. Household. (Ori. Petitioner No.1)
2. Prakash Ramesh Bhagade,
age 26 Yrs., Occu. Education. (Ori. Petitioner No.2)
3. Ku. Asha Ramesh Bhagade,
age 25 Yrs., Occu. Education. (Ori. Petitioner No.3)
4. Sagar Ramesh Bhagade,
age 22 Yrs., Occu. Education. (Ori. Petitioner No.4)
5. Sou. Anjanabai Rupaji Bhagade,
age 69 Yrs., Occu. Education. (Ori. Petitioner No.5)
6. Rupaji Shrawan Bhagade,
age 74 Yrs., Occu. Nil. (Ori. Petitioner No.6)
All R/o Bhiwapur Ward,
Mata Mandir Nagar Chowk, Gawali Mohalla,
Behind Khandelwal Kirana Store,
Chandrapur, Tq. and Distt. Chandrapur. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. R.R. Chhabra, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. S.W. Sambre, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
----------------
2 fa1149.2019(c).odt
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATED : 13.02.2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short "M.V. Act") by the Corporation which owned the bus
involved in the motor vehicular accident dated 04.05.2016, against
the judgment and award dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur (MACT) in Claim
Petition No.99/2016 awarding compensation of Rs.65,53,125/-
along with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the
petition till its realization to the claimants.
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and the learned
Advocate for the Respondents/Claimants. With their assistance
perused the papers.
3. The Respondents, who are the widow, sons, daughter and
parents of the deceased Ramesh filed the above referred claim
petition contending that, the deceased Ramesh was hit by the State
Transport Bus (offending vehicle) when he was traveling on the two
wheeler on the Ballarpur to Chandrapur Road on 04.05.2016 at
about 04.30 p.m. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The
crime was registered against the driver of the offending Bus. The
Respondents relied upon the police papers to prove the issue of
negligence. The Appellant examined the driver of the offending Bus
and the passenger from the offending Bus in support of their
3 fa1149.2019(c).odt
contention that, the accident took place due to the negligence of the
deceased.
4. The driver in his evidence affidavit deposed that, the scooty
came on the wrong side and gave dash to the Bus. Undisputedly, the
evidence of the driver went unchallenged. The another witness
examined by the Appellant deposed that, on the day of accident, she
was traveling in the Bus and she was sitting on the seat behind the
driver's seat. She deposed that, the Bus was going on its proper side
and the deceased came on the scooty towards the Bus and the Bus
driver applied brakes. The police papers includes spot-panchanama.
The spot-panchanama is having sketch of the spot of accident. The
spot-panchanama do not show the brake-marks. Undisputedly, the
crime for rash and negligent driving of the Bus was registered
against the Bus driver. The learned Tribunal in the impugned
judgment considered the evidence of the said witness examined by
the Appellant who claimed to have sat behind the seat of Bus driver
and observed that, in her cross-examination she admitted that no
document, either ticket or pass, was with her to show that, she was
travelling in the said Bus at the time of accident. There cannot be
any dispute that, no one will keep the Bus ticket for such a long
period. However, even if accepted that, the said witness was present
in the offending Bus, her evidence do not find support from the
spot-panchanama. The spot-panchanama shows that, the scooty on
which the deceased was travelling was lying in front of the Bus. On
appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal
observed that, the oral as well as documentary evidence shows that,
the accident took place due to sheer negligent act of the Bus driver.
4 fa1149.2019(c).odt
Considering the evidence on record, the said finding cannot be
faulted.
5. The other challenge to the award is on the point of quantum.
To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants placed reliance
on the Income Tax Return at Exh.29, the Certificate of Registration
in respect of Trading Shop of the deceased at Exh.30, the Certificate
under the Shops and Establishments Act at Exh.33 and Registration
Certificate issued by the Corporation at Exh.34. The relevant
paragraph from the impugned judgment is reproduced below
wherein the aspect of income of deceased is discussed.
"15. Obviously, the oral as well as the documentary
evidence disclosed that the petitioner No.1 is the widow,
the petitioner Nos.2 & 4 are the sons & the petitioner
No.3 is the daughter & the petitioner Nos.5 & 6 are the
parents of the deceased Ramesh Rupaji Bhagade who
was aged about 44 years. No doubt, the petitioners have
filed the Driving License at Exh.26, the P.A.N.Card at
Exh.27, the Adhar Card at Exh.28, the Income Tax
Return at Exh.29, the License issued by M.C at Exh.30,
the Certificate of Registration at Exh.31, the Namuna
No.6 at Exh. 32, the Certificate of Registration under
Shop & Establishment Act at Exh.33, the Registration
Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation at
Exh.34 clearly shows that the deceased Ramesh Rupaji
Bhagade was running the shop of the construction
material by name Mahakali Trader & he was earning
Rs.4,50,000/- P.A approximately by which the income of
the deceased Ramesh Rupaji Bhagade comes to
Rs.4,50,000/- P.A & his age was 44 years at the time of
the said accident."
6. Undisputedly, the gross total income of the deceased as per the
Income Tax Return is shown Rs.4,73,132/-. The learned Tribunal
5 fa1149.2019(c).odt
considered the income of deceased as Rs.4,50,000/- per annum. This
clearly goes to show that, the income of the deceased is
appropriately considered by the learned Tribunal.
7. As regards the amount under the conventional heads is
concerned, the same needs to be brought in consonance with the
judgments in Sarla Verma (smt) and ors. V/s. Delhi Transport
Corporation and anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance
Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680
and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130. Considering the age of the deceased as 44
years at the time of accidental death, the applicable multiplier would
be that of 14. The consortium will have to be computed at the rate of
Rs.40,000/- per claimant. According to the learned Advocate for the
Respondents, the Respondent No.6, who was the father of deceased,
is no more. The amount of Rs.15,000/- each, towards funeral
expenses and loss of estate will have to be added. There is no
dispute in respect of calculation of amount after 1/3 rd deduction
which comes to Rs.4,21,875/-. The further computation will be on
this amount. With this, the amount of compensation is worked out as
under:-
Sr.No. Heads Amount
1 Amount after deduction of 1/4th Rs.4,21,875/-
amount towards personal
expenses.
2 Amount after applying multiplier Rs.4,21,875/- x 14 = Rs.59,06,250/-
of 14
3 Amount towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
4 Amount towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
5 Total amount towards consortium Rs.40,000 x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/-
6 fa1149.2019(c).odt
for 5 Appellants
6 Total amount of compensation Rs.61,36,250/-
8. In view of the above, the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 shall be
entitled to compensation of Rs.61,36,250/- with the same rate of
interest as granted by the learned Tribunal. The apportionment of
the compensation would be as follows:-
Corrected as per order (i) Appellant No.1 (Widow) Rs.50,36,250/- + interest,
dated 01.04.2026
(ii) Appellant No.2 (Son) Rs.2,75,000/- + interest,
(iii) Appellant No.3 (Daughter) Rs.2,75,000/- + interest,
(iv) Appellant No.4 (Son) Rs.2,75,000/- + interest,
(v) Appellant No.5 (Mother) Rs.2, 75,000/- + interest,
The amount be deposited in their respective bank accounts.
The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no
order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
learned Tribunal.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/04/2026 17:17:50
