Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1556 (BOM)

Maharashtra State Road Transport v. Laxman

2017-08-01

SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by MSRTC challenging the Appeal abated against Resp.No.1 vide Court's order Amended as per Court's order dt. judgment and award dated 26.03.2004 passed in M.A.C.P. No.59/2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows: On 14.09.2000 while the respondent was travelling by bus bearing No. MH-12 UA-8466 from Nagpur towards Gurukunj Mozari, the said bus met with an accident and as a result thereof, the left hand of the respondent was crushed and injured. It was fractured. He has incurred the expenses of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- for medical treatment. At the time of accident he was aged about 63 years and earning Rs.1000/- per month from agriculture cultivation. Hence, he claimed the compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the appellant and respondent No.2 who at the relevant time was driving the S.T. bus, which met with an accident. 3. This claim petition came to be resisted by the appellant contending inter alia that the cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the truck, which unexpectedly took his vehicle in reverse direction and therefore, the appellant, is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 4. Respondent No.2 driver of the bus also resisted the petition on the same count. 5. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues at Exh.22. In support of his claim, respondent No.1 examined himself and produced on record the injury certificate. On being satisfied, with this evidence, the Tribunal has allowed the petition and granted the compensation of Rs.45,000/-, inclusive of amount towards no fault liability. 6. In this appeal, I have heard learned counsel for appellant and also perused the evidence on record. On the basis thereof, hold that the respondent has sufficiently proved that the cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the bus. The evidence on record shows that the respondent No.1 has received injury to his arm, he has placed on record the certificate, which refers to 50% of temporary disability on account of the fracture sustained by him in the said accident. The injury sustained by him was 10" x 4" laceration which injury was across the forearm. The evidence on record shows that the respondent No.1 has received injury to his arm, he has placed on record the certificate, which refers to 50% of temporary disability on account of the fracture sustained by him in the said accident. The injury sustained by him was 10" x 4" laceration which injury was across the forearm. Hence having regard to the age of the respondent No.1 at the time of accident, which was 63 years, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.5000/- for loss of comforts and amenities and Rs.5000/- medical expenses and attendant and Rs.30,000/- for general loss, which totally comes to Rs.45,000/-. 7. In my considered opinion having regard to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which appears to be just and reasonable, no interference is warranted therein. The appeal therefore, being without merits, stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.