[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prasnna Tours And Travels, Through Its ... vs Shri. Suneet Vishwanath Kapoor, And 3 ... on 9 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5590
1 fa200.2015.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.200/2015
Prasanna Tours and Travels,
having its office at Avatar Meharbaba
Complex, Bhole Petrol Pump Square,
Amravati Road, Nagpur, through its
Manager Shri Nitin Prabhakar Surawar. ... Appellant
- Versus -
1. Shri Suneet Vishwanath Kapoor,
aged 30 years., Occu. Not Known,
R/o Plot Number 210,
Saraswati Apartments, Reshimbagh,
Nagpur.
2. Shri Ulhasrao Sitaram Deshpande,
aged Adult, Occu. Not Known, R/o
Plot No.17, Yogakshem Colony,
Wardha Road, Nagpur.
3. Shri Balkrishna Ramchandra Wadbure,
aged 36 years., Occu. Service,
R/o Chitnis Nagar, Umred Road,
Tajbagh, Nagpur. Appeal is dismissed
against Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 as per
R (J.) order
Dt.22.3.2016.
4. The National Insurance Company Limited,
3, Middleton Street, Post Bag Number
1229, Calcutta 700 071 (West Bengal). ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Uday Arun Gosavi, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. S.G. Kasbekar, Advocate for the Respondent No.4.
----------------
2 fa200.2015.odt
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 04.02.2026.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 09.04.2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short "M.V. Act") by the original Respondent No.3, Tours
and Travels, against the judgment and award dated 09.05.2013
awarding compensation in favour of the Respondent No.1 i.e.
original Claimant in Claim Petition No.640/2006.
2. The aforesaid Claim Petition was filed by the Claimant with
the contention that, on 06.09.2005 at about 04.00 p.m. when he was
travelling in the Volvo Bus No.MH31-AP-6980 from Pune to Nagpur,
the accident took place around 02.30 p.m. between Amdapur to
Chikhali, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus Driver and the
Bus turn turtle. The Claimant suffered injury for which he was
hospitalized. The Claim Petition was contested by the Respondent
Nos.2, 3 and 4. The Appellant did not contest the Claim Petition.
The issues were framed. The Claimant and owner of the Bus led
their evidence. Considering the evidence on record, the learned
Tribunal passed the above referred judgment and award.
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and the learned
Advocate for the Claimant. Scrutinized the papers.
a) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that,
the Tribunal observed that, the Bus was in the possession of the
Appellant being the Operator, without any agreement or document
between the Appellant and the Bus owner. The Bus owner made no
pleadings in the written statement in that regard. There was no
3 fa200.2015.odt
evidence of contract between the Appellant and the Bus owner. The
copy of agreement was not produced by the owner. The observations
made by the learned Tribunal are unsustainable and the impugned
judgment and award be quashed and set aside.
b) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimant that,
the Appellant did not contest the Claim Petition and, therefore, it
cannot seek exoneration from the liability of compensation. The
learned Tribunal has rightly considered the material on record and
no interference was called for in the impugned judgment and award.
4. The undisputed factual aspect of the matter is that, the
offending vehicle i.e. Volvo Bus was owned by the Respondent
No.2/original Respondent No.1 and it was insured with the
Respondent No.4/original Respondent No.4. Since the Appellant did
not cause appearance in the Claim Petition and did not file the
written statement, the Claim Petition proceeded ex parte against the
Appellant.
5. The Bus owner i.e. Respondent No.2 examined himself below
Exh.93. In his cross-examination it has come on record that, the Bus
belonged to him and it was being plied through Prasanna Travels i.e.
the Appellant. The Driver of the Bus was engaged by him. It has
further come in the cross-examination that, he could produce the
copy of agreement with the Appellant. There is no dispute that, the
copy of agreement between the Bus owner and the Appellant was
not produced. The Appellant did not cross-examine any of the
witnesses. The Claimant filed evidence affidavit in support of the
Claim Petition with the specific contention that, he boarded the
offending vehicle which was operated by the Appellant on daily basis
4 fa200.2015.odt
from Pune to Nagpur. The said evidence of the Claimant went
unchallenged from the Appellant's side. The learned Tribunal
considered the evidence on record and observed that, the
Respondent No.3 i.e. Appellant did not enter the witness box to
prove that, it was not in possession of the vehicle to exonerate it
from the liability. Merely because the cross-examination of the Bus
owner was not by the Appellant, it will not benefit the Appellant. In
absence of any other contrary evidence on record, the evidence
available on record is to be accepted and that is done by the learned
Tribunal as seen from the impugned judgment and award. With the
evidence available on record, absence of copy of agreement between
the Bus owner and the Appellant by itself will not be sufficient to
interfere with the judgment and award.
6. As regards quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal
considered the medical bills and the expenditure for treatment.
Nothing is shown as to how the compensation arrived at by the
learned Tribunal is erroneous. The observations in that regard are in
para 22 of the impugned judgment and award.
7. In view of these observations, the Appeal fails. Hence, the
following order:-
ORDER
i) The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
ii) The 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: 09/04/2026 10:53:39
