High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 fa 475.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2025WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11996 OF 2024ANDCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1290 OF 2025Maharashtra State Road TransportCorporation.. AppellantVersusSumaiyya Mukhtar Shaikh and others.. RespondentsShri Dnyaneshwar S. Bagul, Advocate for the Appellant.Shri Shaikh Kayyum Najir, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.CORAM :SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE :14TH JULY, 2025.FINAL ORDER :.Heard both sides finally.2.This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated29.02.2024 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Aurangabad in M. A. C. T. No. 865 of 2023. The respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are the dependents of deceased Mukhtar Shaikh areawarded compensation of Rs. 33,95,600/-. Appellant –Corporation has deposited Rs. 25,000/- towards statutory depositas well as awarded amount with interest that is Rs. 36,03,368/-.
Legal Reasoning
2 fa 475.253.It’s a death claim. Accident took place on 08.09.2023 whenmotorcycle of the deceased Mukhtar was given dash by the bus ofthe appellant – corporation. It is stated that he lost his life due torash and negligent driving of the driver. CR. No. 0196/2023 wasalso registered against him. It is contended that deceased was31 years old and skilled plumber. He use to earn Rs. 30,000/- permonth. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are dependents.4.Learned counsel Mr. Dnyaneshwar Bagul for the appellantadverted my attention to the issues framed by the Tribunal andreasons assigned for issue Nos. 1 to 3. He would submit that noreasons are assigned for answering issue Nos. 1 and 2 inaffirmative. He would submit that for arriving at a quantumsome reasons are given in para No. 13 and break up is given inpara No. 14, but that would be redundant for fixing the liabilityon the appellant in absence of candid finding on issue No. 2. Hewould submit that matter needs to be relegated to the Tribunalfor deciding it afresh. Reliance is placed on the judgment of theGauhati High Court and this Court in the matters of Union of Indiaand others Vs. Sh. P. Lalbiaka and others reported in (2016) 5 Gauhati LawReports 692 and Manjulaben Shah and others Vs. Madhuriben Meghji Shahreported in 2018(4) Mh.L.J. 319.5.Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Shaikh appearing for therespondents/claimants supports impugned judgment and award.It is submitted that the text of the judgment is sufficient to inferrash and negligent driving and appellant is liable for payment of 3 fa 475.25compensation. It is submitted that there is no need to remandthe matter as there is sufficient material on record to decide theissue No. 2. He would further submit that police papers of CR.No. 0196/2023 are already on record, which corroborate rash andnegligent driving of employee of the appellant. He would submitthat undue hardship would be caused to the claimants. Relianceis placed on the judgment dated 14.07.2023 in Appeal FromOrder No. 29 of 2017 of the Coordinate Bench in the matter ofBashirkhan Samsherkhan Pathan (deceased) and othersVs. Ibrahimkhan Aliyarkhan Pathan and others.6.I have considered rival submissions of the parties. There isno dispute that it’s a death claim arising out of accident havingtaken place on 08.09.2023. The deceased was riding motorcycle,which collided with bus of the appellant. After accident, offencewas registered against the driver.7.Following issues are framed by the Member of theTribunal:(1)Whether the claimants prove that deceased Mukhtar Rashid Shaha died in a motor vehicle accident held on 08.09.2023, at about 13.30 hours, near Harsul Naka, infront of Madhura Lawns, on Fulambri to Aurangabad Road ?(2)Whether the claimants prove that the accident occurred 4 fa 475.25because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of M.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing registration No. MH-20/BL-3377 ?(3)Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation ? If yes, to what extent and from whom ?8.Issue Nos. 1 to 3 were commonly considered. So far asissue No. 1 is concerned, there can be no dispute that it was avehicular accident and death was arising out of the same. ParaNos. 9 to 11 show that learned Member considered and discussedregistration of the crime, documents produced on record and thedepositions of the witnesses. In para No. 12, the quantum ofcompensation and judgments relied by the appellant, depositionsof the witnesses and the documents in support of the quantumare considered. The quantum is determined in para No. 13 and14 of the judgment. It is rightly contended by the learnedcounsel Mr. D. S. Bagul for the appellant that no reasons areassigned for answering issue No. 2 referred above. Though therewas evidence on record in the form of police papers, deposition ofwitnesses, no express findings are recorded by the Tribunal.9.Pertinently, issue No. 2 goes to the root of the matter and itdecides liability of payment of compensation. It is rightlycontended that without there being any reasons liability isimposed on the appellant. I am of the considered view thatimpugned judgment suffers from the perversity. 5 fa 475.2510.The discussion and reasons for arriving at quantum wouldnot rectify the fundamental defect of imposing liability on theappellant without reasons. I cannot be oblivious of the fact thatliability to make payment dependents on the discussion and thereasons for issue No. 2. Three contingencies are probable foranswering the said issue namely, driver is liable or not liable forrash and negligent driving, contributory negligence or compositenegligence. I am of the considered view that matter needs to berelegated to the Tribunal.11.The finding to issue No. 2 by assigning reasons is likely toaffect the liability of payment of compensation. If this Courtproceeds to examine issue No. 2 instead of remanding the matterto the Tribunal, then either of the parties are likely to lose oneforum to challenge the finding. Both the learned counsels havefairly conceded that they do not want to lead any furtherevidence. Hence matter can be expedited permitting the partiesto canvass their submissions.12.I am equally aware of the hardship sustained by theclaimants. The appellant – corporation has deposited amounts ofRs. 25,000/- and Rs. 36,03,368/-. Though quantum ofcompensation is to be decided afresh, the same has been ensured.It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on meritsof the matter and it would be left to the discretion of the Tribunalto come to the conclusion.13.Reliance is placed by the appellant on the judgment of the 6 fa 475.25Gauhati High Court in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. Sh.P. Lalbiaka and others (supra). I have gone through para Nos. 11 and12 of the judgment, which inter alia refers to judgment of theSupreme Court. I have also gone through judgment of theCoordinate Bench in the matter of Manjulaben Shah and others Vs.Madhuriben Meghji Shah (supra). Both of these judgments underlinesignificance of assigning the reasons. I propose to adopt thesame course by relegating the parties before the Tribunal.14.Learned counsel Mr. Shaikh for the respondents/claimantsseeks reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in thematter of Bashirkhan Samsherkhan Pathan (deceased) andothers Vs. Ibrahimkhan Aliyarkhan Pathan and others(supra) to buttress that remand of the matter is not necessary. Inthat case suit was filed for declaration and possession, which wasdecreed by the Trial Court. Trial Court rendered findings anddecided against the then plaintiff. The judgment was assailedbefore the Appellate Court and order of remand was passed. Itwas held that issue of possession was not framed and theentitlement of the parties to the properties was required to bedecided. None of the parties had prayed for remand before theAppellate Court. The findings are distinguishable. In thepresent case I have already recorded that the findings on issueNo. 2 have bearing over the liability to pay compensation. In thecase at hand issue was rightly framed, but not recording thereasons would vitiate the order. Hence the judgment cannot bemade applicable to the present case. 7 fa 475.2515.For the reasons recorded above, I pass following order.ORDER (i) First Appeal is allowed.(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 29.02.2024 passed in M.A.C.P. No.865/2023 is quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad for deciding it afresh by assigning reasons, after hearing submissions of the parties.(iii) Both the parties undertake that they would not adduce anyfurther evidence.(iv) The decision shall be taken within three month from today.(v) Office is directed to transmit the amount deposited in this Court to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad.(vi) Parties shall appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad on 21.07.2025.(vii) Record and Proceedings shall be sent back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad.(viii) Civil Applications are disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/July 25