Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 40 (BOM)

Divisional Controller, Msrtc v. Latikabai

2019-01-07

A.S.CHANDURKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle so as to challenge the judgment of the Claims Tribunal awarding compensation to the claimants. 2. The facts in brief are that one Vinod Dhawas was serving at the Ordnance Factory Nagpur. On 15-5-2002 at about 9 p.m. when he was proceeding on his bicycle towards Wadi, he was dashed by a State Transport Bus owned by the appellant. As a result of that accident, the said Vinod suffered fatal injuries. A claim petition under Section 166 of the said Act was claiming compensation of Rs.13,50,000/-. The application was opposed by the appellant by pleading that the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased. It was denied that the deceased was permanently employed and thus it was stated that the application was liable to be dismissed. 3. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant No.1 - widow was examined. She placed on record the salary certificate of the deceased along with various other documents. Another witness who was serving in the Ordnance Factory was also examined. On that basis, the Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible to the extent of 80% for the cause of the accident and thus awarded compensation of Rs.10,36,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant has challenged the said judgment. 4. Shri R. S. Charpe, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the light of the spot panchanama on record, it was clear that the deceased had equally contributed to the accident in question. The road was shown to the 60 ft. wide and in absence of any evidence by the claimants to indicate negligence on the part of the offending bus, equal contributory negligence of both the vehicles ought to be considered. Even the amount of compensation as awarded was on a higher side. He also referred to the evidence on record to substantiate his contentions. 5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and I have also perused the records of the case. 6. The following point arises for consideration: Whether the judgment of the Claims Tribunal calls for any interference? 7. For the accident in question, there was no eye witness. 5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and I have also perused the records of the case. 6. The following point arises for consideration: Whether the judgment of the Claims Tribunal calls for any interference? 7. For the accident in question, there was no eye witness. The claimant No.1 examined herself and a co-worker to indicate the employment of the deceased. It is however pertinent to note that the appellant also did not examine its driver who was driving bus in question and which caused the accident. The spot panchanama at Exhibit-26 indicates that the road in question had width of 60 ft. The body of the deceased was found in the middle of the road and on that basis, it was held that the bus had contributed to the accident to the extent of 80%. 8. The best witness to the accident would have been the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant however has not examined him. In the light of the evidence on record, there is no basis to disregard or alter the conclusion recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the bus contributed to the extent of 80% to the accident and the deceased contributed to the extent of 20%. That finding as recorded cannot be said to be perverse. 9. Though it was submitted that the amount of compensation as granted is on a higher side when the said aspect is examined in the light of the recent decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2018) 3 MhLJ 70 it is found that the amount of compensation is not liable to be reduced. The point as framed is answered by holding that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 10. Accordingly, the first appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount of compensation with accrued interest. The parties to bear their own costs.