[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Venkat Sopan Aylane And Another vs Bhakti Bhagwan Markandeya And Another on 30 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:13347
{1} FA 2027 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2027 OF 2014
1. Venkat S/o Sopan Aylane
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Truck Driver,
R/o. More Nagar, Latur, Tq. and
Dist.Latur
(Driver of Truck No.MH-04/H-3209)
2. Satish s/o Vaijnath Deshetwar
Age: Major, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Bharat Nagar, Ahmedpur,
Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur.
(Owner of Truck No.MH-04 H-3209) ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondent)
Versus
1. Bhakti w/o Bhagwan Markandeya
Age : 44 years, Occu.: Household,
2. Bhagwan s/o Vasudeorao Markandeya
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Service,
Both R/o. Renuka Nagar, Latur,
Tq. & Dist.Latur. ..Respondents
(Orig. Claimants)
.....
Advocate for Appellant : Mr.Kalyan Patil h/f. Mr. S.G. Rudrawar
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. R.P.Adgaonkar
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 25 MARCH, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30 MARCH, 2026
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Original respondent nos.1 and 2 hereby questions the
{2} FA 2027 OF 2014
judgment and award dated 15-05-2014, passed by learned Adhoc
District Judge-1 and Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (MACT), Latur, in MACP No.191 of 2013 filed by present
respondents herein/original claimants under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act), by which learned Tribunal has allowed
the petition directing present appellants to jointly and severally pay
compensation to the tune of Rs.18,70,000/- with interest @ 9% per
annum.
2. Learned counsel appearing for appellants would point out that,
learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record in its
proper perspective. That, the judgment and award is based on
assumptions and presumptions and rather contrary to the evidence
on record. According to learned counsel, the approach of the learned
Tribunal is against spirit of the MV Act and Rules.
3. It is emphasized that, there was no evidence before the learned
Tribunal to record a finding that Truck driver was solely responsible.
It is pointed out that, it ought to have been appreciated that the
Truck was taking turn and deceased, who was riding Scooty Access
had given dash from rear side of the Truck. That, it ought to have
{3} FA 2027 OF 2014
been appreciated that pillion rider of Scooty had fallen from Scooty,
as a result of which, deceased driver had lost control of vehicle, but
such aspects are not appreciated by learned Tribunal. That even rash
and excess speed with which deceased was proceeding is not
correctly comprehended and appreciated by learned Tribunal and
findings recorded are contrary to spot panchanama.
4. It is further submitted that, even while computing
compensation, settled legal position has not been taken into account,
more particularly, when deceased was a college going boy and when
he had no independent source of income. On all above counts,
impugned judgment is questioned and appeal is sought to be allowed
by setting aside the same.
5. Learned counsel for respondents would justify the judgment
passed by learned Tribunal and he submits that, it is in consonance
with evidence on record.
6. After considering the respective submissions and on going
through the record, it appears that MACP No.191 of 2013 was
instituted on the premise that, on 25-07-2012, deceased Prasad was
{4} FA 2027 OF 2014
returning home over a Scooty Access bearing No.MH24 Y-8627 after
attending a function and he was carrying his mother Bhakti as a
pillion rider. That, in the vicinity of Bagira Baniyan Factory, MIDC
Latur, the Scooty suffered dash from Truck bearing No.MH04 H-
3209. Both, rider Prasad as well as his mother Bhakti were taken to
hospital, but while undergoing treatment, Prasad succumbed to
injuries and therefore, alleging rash and negligence on the part of
original respondent no.1/driver, compensation was claimed from him
as well as Truck owner/respondent no.2 as vehicle was not insured.
Learned Tribunal heard both sides and by judgment and award dated
15-05-2014 allowed the claim petition by holding present appellants
(original respondent nos.1 and 2) to be jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, instant appeal has been
preferred.
7. After considering the submissions, appeal seems to be primarily
on two grounds i.e. sole liability being fixed on driver of Truck and
secondly, exorbitant compensation awarded even when deceased was
a student.
{5} FA 2027 OF 2014
8. In above backdrop, the issues are dealt accordingly. Perused
the record and impugned judgment.
9. Learned tribunal seems to have framed following issues :
"1. Do claimants prove that the death of Prasad s/o Bhagwan
Markandeya has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of Truck
bearing registration No.MH04 H-3209 ?
2. Do claimants prove that said accident had offered due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.1 Venkat Aylane the driver of Truck
bearing registration No.MH04 H-3209 ?
3. Are claimants entitled to compensation ? If yes, what amount and
from whom ?
10. Record shows that, pillion rider, who was mother of deceased
has examined herself as an eye witness. Equally driver of the truck
had also stepped in the witness box and their evidence is at exh.17
and exh.39 respectively.
Sum and substance of evidence of CW1 mother of deceased is
that, on 25-07-2012, at around 04:00 p.m., her 20 years old son
namely Prasad and she herself in the capacity of pillion rider were
returning home after attending a function. She specifically stated the
Scooty on which they were proceeding was on extremely left side of
{6} FA 2027 OF 2014
the road and at that time, Truck bearing no.MH04 H-3209 which
came from back side in high and excessive speed and which was
driven in rash and negligent manner gave dash to the Scooty at its
rear part and deceased came under the wheel of the truck. Even she
was injured and her son, who took treatment up to 01-08-2012
finally succumbed to the injuries.
She has faced cross-examination at the hands of learned
counsel for owner and driver of Truck wherein she has answered and
admitted that after the accident, she was thrown on the left side of
the road and Scooty had toppled over her. She denied that her own
son went and gave dash to rear left wheel of Truck but she again
admitted that Truck driver admitted her and her son in the hospital.
She has also denied that Truck driver was not at fault.
11. Here, there is evidence of DW1 Venkat Sopan Aylane, Truck
driver also at exh.39 and according to him, on 25-07-2012 he was
driving the vehicle owned by Satish Vaijnath Devshetwar. According
to him, while he was taking left turn from MIDC main road and when
the Truck had just gone ahead of the turn, all of a sudden one Scooty
driven by deceased gave dash to rear wheel of the truck. According
to him, deceased was driving Scooty in high speed and when he took
{7} FA 2027 OF 2014
turn, he could not control the speed and as his mother alighted,
deceased went and gave dash to Truck from back side to left side rear
wheel. According to him, deceased was solely responsible for the
accident.
While under cross-examination he admitted that he himself did
not lodge complaint against deceased for hitting the Truck from rear
side. He admitted that, crime was registered against him and he was
chargesheeted by Police and that he never challenged on false
implication. He denied that, front wheel of the Truck ran over the
head of deceased. He denied that dash of Scooty was from behind.
12. Thus, here, mother, who was in the company of deceased has
attributed fault to Truck driver and Truck driver on the other hand,
attributes fault to deceased. Under such circumstances, it becomes
necessary to look to other evidence i.e. spot panchanama, which is at
exh.21. However, spot panchanama at exh.21 does not show
location of the vehicles i.e. Scooty and Truck. The learned Tribunal,
in paragraph 13, by considering the injuries suffered by the deceased
and damage to Scooty, has observed that driver of Truck was at fault
and because of his rash and negligence driving accident occurred.
Even here, there is eye witness account of pillion rider, mother of
{8} FA 2027 OF 2014
deceased, who had better opportunity to narrate the occurrence.
13. Taking into account the above material, coupled with accident
report issued by RTO authorities at exh.44, it is emerging that right
side of M.V. had suffered scratches. Therefore, on the strength of
above evidence, there is material suggesting that mother of deceased,
who was a pillion rider and survival of accident, their vehicle
suffered dash from rear side and even in cross-examination, there is
suggestion that she was thrown off and she fell on left side of the
road. Therefore, so much material is sufficient to draw inference that
Scooty suffered dash from back side. Learned Tribunal also seems to
have dealt with such issue in paragraph 12 and 13 and held that, that
is the possible view that could emerge in the light of evidence.
Hence, there is no infirmity or perversity in the findings of the
learned Tribunal holding original respondent no.1 to be solely
responsible.
14. Second objection of challenge is excess quantum granted even
when deceased was a college going boy.
It has come on record that deceased, who was taking education
in B.com. 3rd year and according to mother, he was ambitious of
{9} FA 2027 OF 2014
becoming M.B.A. graduate or Chartered Accountant and had joined
classes to that extent and therefore, he could have earned atleast
Rs.25,000/- per month and maintained claimants.
Learned Tribunal, while considering issue no.3 as well as
citations relied by each of the sides, has thought it fit to consider that
deceased might have earned Rs.20,000/- per month in the backdrop
of above ambitious career and making it a base, further calculation
are made in para 20. This court does not find the same to be excess
or exorbitant as is tried to be put-forth by the appellants. Quantum
considered by the learned Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, is
reasonable one. Therefore, it needs no inference.
15. After taking into account the above discussion and on going
through the record and impugned judgment, this Court is of the view
that, there is no illegality, error or perversity so as to interfere in the
impugned judgment. Accordingly, I pass following order :
ORDER
First Appeal is dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
