Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1006 (BOM)

Baban Martand Jadhav v. Shalan Mohanrao Mohite

2009-08-13

NISHITA MHATRE

body2009
Judgment :- ORAL JUDGEMENT: 1. The First Appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune on 26.11.1991. The deceased was the husband of the appellant No.1 and the father of appellant Nos.2 to 6. He was running a stall in the canteen of a company in Pune. According to the claimants, the deceased met with an accident on 30.9.1982 at Chinchwad bus station while boarding the bus. The claimants, including the wife and children of the deceased, had claimed an amount of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation on the basis that his monthly income was Rs.5,000/- and that he would have survived till the age of 75, since he was hale and hearty prior to the accident. 2. The opponent NO.5 Insurance Company filed its written statement contending that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and, therefore, the insurance company would not be solely liable. It had also raised the issue of limitation. 3. The appellants herein who were opponent Nos.1 and 2 before the MACT contended that it was impossible to drive in a rash and negligent manner near the bus station as it was an extremely crowded area. It is contended that since the driver was not negligent the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation. 4. The Tribunal granted the application to a certain extent. The Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the applicants whereas Rs.45,000/- was to be paid by the appellants, inclusive of the no fault liability. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present Appeal. The Insurance company has abided with the award and has paid over the amount liable to the paid by the insurance company to the claimants. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal has incorrectly foisted the liability on the appellants when the driver of the vehicle was not negligent. It is submitted that it was only when somebody shouted that a person had fallen under the rear wheel of the bus, that he realised that an accident had occurred. It is further submitted that the neligence on the part of the driver has not been proved as it was impossible for a driver to have driven the bus rashly or negligently when it was to halt at an overcrowded bus stop. 6. It is further submitted that the neligence on the part of the driver has not been proved as it was impossible for a driver to have driven the bus rashly or negligently when it was to halt at an overcrowded bus stop. 6. I have perused the award. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the applicants had no personal knowledge about the accident inasmuch as they were not eye witnesses to the accident. The Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and has held that when the bus came to a halt at the bus stop some persons boarded the bus. However, the deceased it appears that while boarding the bus fell off the bus and came under the rear wheel. The Tribunal has observed that both the driver as well as the conductor of the bus were negligent since it was the duty of the conductor to ensure that all persons who had boarded the bus had entered in safely. The Tribunal has not accepted the contention of the appellants that they would not be liable since a passenger had fallen off the bus and had been crushed under rear wheel of the bus. The Tribunal has, therefore, held the appellants to be liable on account of the negligence. 7. While considering the amount of compensation to be awarded, the Tribunal has observed that the applicants had proved the monthly income of the deceased was about Rs.800/-. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from that amount which the deceased could have used towards personal expenses. On the basis of the remaining amount i.e. Rs.534/- per month, the Tribunal has calculated the amount to be awarded. The Tribunal has considered the annual dependency of the claimants to be Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal has then taken into consideration that since the deceased was 48 years at the time of the accident, the mulitplier to be used would be 15. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.95,500/- by considering the loss of consortium as well. 8. In my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error by awarding the aforesaid amount to the claimants. There is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that there was negligence on the part of the bus driver and therefore, the appellants would certainly be liable. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.95,500/- by considering the loss of consortium as well. 8. In my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error by awarding the aforesaid amount to the claimants. There is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that there was negligence on the part of the bus driver and therefore, the appellants would certainly be liable. The Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount payable as compensation to the claimants based on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in its various judgments. 9. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.