High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1) fa-400-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.400 OF 2025WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.1359 OF 2025Maharashtra State Road TransportCorporation, MumbaiThrough Divisional Controller,Ahmednagar, Kothla Road,Sarjepura, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar...Appellant(Orig. Respondent)Versus1.Smt. Shital Shashikant Dange,Age : 36 years, Occu. : Household.2.Miss. Sanskruti Shashikant Dange,Age : 13 years, Occu. : Education.3.Miss. Shrushti Shashikant Dange,Age : o8 years, Occu. : Education,Applicant no. 2 and 3 are minorThrough natural guardian mother-Applicant no. 1.4. Arvind Bhaskar Dange,Age : 58 years, Occu. : Nil.5. Sakharbai Arvind Dange,Age : 54 years, Occu. : Household,All are R/o. : Chitali Railway Station,Rahata, TaI. Rahata,Dist. Ahmednagar...Respondents (Orig. Claimants) …Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. A. C. Darandale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON: 19th MARCH, 2025.PRONOUNCED ON: 01st APRIL, 2025.ORDER:-
Legal Reasoning
(2) fa-400-2025.odt1.The appellant (original respondent) impugns judgment andaward dated 06.04.2024 passed by Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal, Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No.61/2018. (Hereinafter,parties are referred to by their original status for the sake ofconvenience and brevity).2.The respondent nos.1 to 5 (original claimants) institutedM.A.C.P. No.61/2018 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,09,32,455/- towards accidentaldeath of late Shashikant Arvind Dange. The claimants contendthat on 29.05.2017, Shashikant was driving his Maruti Omni Vanfrom Shrirampur to Puntamba as per traffic rules. One DaulatMalve was accompanying him in car. Suddenly offending bus camefrom opposite direction and gave forceful dash to van. In result,Shashikant suffered serious injuries. He was hospitalized andafter long drawn medical treatment, succumbed to the injuries on18.10.2017. According to claimants, Shashikant was runninggrocery shop. As per his last Income Tax Returns, he earned profitof Rs.4,04,887/- out of business. The claimants were dependents onhis income. The family suffered loss of dependency. As such, claimfor compensation of Rs.1,09,32,455/- was raised.3.The respondent/MSRTC took a plea of sole negligence on thepart of deceased Shashikant while driving his car. It is contendedthat postmortem is not conducted. The death is not proximate to (3) fa-400-2025.odtinjuries suffered in accident. Rest of averments regarding income,dependency etc. were denied.4.The Tribunal framed issues, recorded evidence of parties. Theclaimants in their endeavour to prove their case relied upon sixwitnesses and documentary evidence like police papers, medicalbills, discharge card, Income Tax Returns, injury certificate, 7/12extract, charge-sheet etc. Per contra, respondent/MSRTC reliedupon evidence of its driver Kishor Vasant Kudale.5.The Tribunal upon evaluation of evidence, allowed claim videjudgment and award dated 06.04.2024 directingrespondent/MSRTC to pay compensation of Rs.63,58,630/- toclaimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date offiling of claim petition till actual realization of amount.6.Mr. Bagul, learned Advocate appearing for appellant assailsimpugned judgment and award firstly on the ground that findingsrecorded by Tribunal on the point of negligence is contrary torecord. Secondly, assessment of compensation is excessive andexorbitant. The death of deceased is not attributable to injuriessuffered in accident and in absence of postmortem report, Tribunalcould not have drawn such presumption.7.Per contra, Mr. Darandale, learned Advocate appearing forrespondents/claimants would submit that claimants have proved (4) fa-400-2025.odtnegligence of bus driver by leading adequate evidence. Relyingupon First Information Report and charge-sheet, he would submitthat during police investigation, bus driver was found responsiblefor accident. The evidence of CW-5 Shubham Malve/eye witnessfurther supports plea of negligence against bus driver. By invitingattention of this Court to Exhibits 46 and 47 i.e. death reportcoupled with evidence of Dr. Chetan Pradhan (CW-6), he submitsthat deceased was under continuous medical treatment and lastlysuccumbed to injuries suffered in accident. Therefore, it can besafely presumed that death of deceased was attributable toaccidental injuries. Mr. Darandale would further submit thatevidence of CW-2 is sufficient to prove income of deceased, which issupported by Income Tax Returns at Exhibits 28, 29 and 30. He,therefore, urges that there is no merit in Appeal and same deservesto be dismissed.8.I have considered submissions advanced by learnedAdvocates appearing for respective parties and perused record andproceedings. Undisputedly, there was accident between MarutiOmni Van and ST Bus. Late Shashikant was driving his MarutiVan. There was collision between Van and Bus. In thisbackground, to prove negligence of bus driver claimants have reliedupon police papers. The FIR and charge-sheet demonstrate thatpolice investigation concluded about fault of bus driver in cause of (5) fa-400-2025.odtaccident. Eventually, filed charge-sheet against him. The evidenceof CW-5-Shubham Malve, who was accompanying deceased in theVan also supports claimants’ case. Per contra, KishorKudale/driver of bus contends that car driver was at fault. Exceptself-interested testimony of bus driver, there is no material to drawinference as to negligence or contributory negligence of deceased incase of accident. Mr. Bagul, learned Advocate by inviting attentionof this Court to spot panchanama Exhibit 23 submits that accidentoccurred at the curve and there is head on collision. However, onthe basis of spot panchanama, only position of vehicle afteraccident can be ascertained that itself would not constituteevidence as to actual manner of accident. It is difficult to drawinference of negligence or contributory negligence on the part ofdeceased on the basis of contents of panchanama. The SupremeCourt of India in case of Jiju Kuruvila and others Vs.Kunjujamma Mohan and others1, observed in paragraph no.24,which reads thus:“24. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, asshown in a Scene Mahazar, cannot give a substantial proofas to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one orthe other. When two vehicles coming from oppositedirections collide, the position of the vehicles and itsdirection etc. depends on number of factors like speed ofvehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place atwhich one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of theaccident, one may suggest or presume the manner in whichthe accident caused, but in absence of any direct orcorroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as towhether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In1AIR 2013 SC 2293. (6) fa-400-2025.odtabsence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Courtcannot give any specific finding about negligence on thepart of any individual.”9.The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, concluded that busdriver was at fault. There is nothing on record to show that suchfinding is inconsistent with evidence or not plausible. This Courtwhile sitting in appeal would not disturb finding of fact arrived byTribunal, which is consistent with the evidence on record. In thatview of matter, there is no force in contentions of appellant thatdeceased was either negligent or contributed in cause of accident.10.Mr. Bagul, learned Advocate appearing for appellant submitsthat deceased had suffered injuries to his leg. He was hospitalizedfor about five months and lastly breathed on 18.10.2017. Accordingto him, in absence of postmortem report, his death cannot beattributed to injuries suffered in accident.11.It is trite that, if death of victim occurred in continuation ofmedical treatment, unless evidence is brought on record depictingany other concrete reason of death, it would be presumed thatdeath is in deference to accidental injuries. In present case,claimants relied upon evidence of Dr. Chetan Pradhan coupledwith certificate at Exhibit 46 issued by Sancheti Hospital, whereinit is certified that deceased was admitted to their hospital from 30thMay 2017 to 20th September 2017 and readmitted on 26thSeptember 2017 to 18th October 2017. He died due to “Sigmoid (7) fa-400-2025.odtcolon performation with D.I.C. with Speticaemia with Hepato renalfailure in an old case of polytrauma sustained in a Road trafficaccident”. The injury certificate dated 29.06.2017, Exhibit45,which is proved in evidence of CW-6 shows that deceased hadsuffered six fractures. Two of them were comminuted fractures,apart from blunt trauma on chest, abdomen and CLW overforehead. The CW-6 Dr. Chetan Pradhan clearly states that causeof death was well known to doctors, therefore, postmortem was notrequired. The witness was one of the member of treating doctorsteam. During cross-examination, he specifically denied thataccidental injuries were not instrumental for cause of death.Although respondents are challenging aforesaid evidence, no contramateiral is brought on record to dislodge claimants’ evidence onaforesaid aspect. In that view of matter, findings recorded byTribunal holding that death of deceased was in deference toaccidental injuries need not be disturbed.12.So far as income of deceased is concerned, claimants haverelied upon evidence of Mr. Dipen Dilip Devi (CW-2), CharteredAccountant from Ahmednagar. He submits that for AssessmentYear 2014-15 net profit of deceased was Rs.3,02,793/- and forAssessment Year 2015-16 it was Rs.2,91,141/-. It was increased inthe Financial Year 2016-17 to Rs.4,04,887/-. The copies of IncomeTax Acknowledgment are made part of record and Exhibited as 28, (8) fa-400-2025.odt29 and 30. The last Income Tax Returns for Assessment Years2016-17 and 2017-18 are supported by balance-sheet. The Tribunalis, therefore, right in accepting claimants’ contentions as to incomeof deceased. Mr. Bagul, learned Advocate submits that Tribunalhas erroneously granted exponential compensation towardstransportation, attendant charges and consortium. However,looking to the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization,compensation towards general damages is appropriately awarded.Even compensation against consortium is rightly awarded in termsof law laid down by Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vsNanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram2, which is further approved bythree Judges Bench of Supreme Court of India in case of UnitedIndia Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @Satwinder Kaur and Other3.13.In result, Appeal sans merit. Hence, stands dismissed. Theamount of compensation as deposited by appellant be disbursed toclaimants as per apportionment indicated in award passed byTribunal.14.In view of dismissal of Appeal, pending Civil Application alsostands disposed of. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/April-202522018 (4) TAC 345.3(2021) 11 SCC 780.