Bombay High Court
Case Details
and 305.odt 1 Judg. F.A. No. 302, 297, 299, 301, 298, 300 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2002 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Division Offe Latur. VERSUS ..APPELLANT (Org. Respondent No.2) 1. 2. 3. Sudhakar Vithalrao Shinde, Age : 45 Years Off. Agrifulture, R/o. Kalamgaon Tq. Nilanga Dist. Latur. Respondent (Org. flaimant) Exefutive Engineer, M.S.E.B. D & M Divn. Offe Nilanga Dist. Latur. Respondent ( Org. Respondent No.3) Pandurang S/o Parshuram Yenjane ( Deleted) Age : 35 Years, Off. Driver, R/o Depot S.T. Ahmedpur Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur AND
Legal Reasoning
FIRST APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2002 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Divisional Offe, Latur. VERSUS 1. Rangrao S/o Gangaram Shinde, Age : 45 Years, Off. Agrifulture, R/o. Kalamgaon Tq. Nilanga Dist. Latur .. Appellant (Org. Respondent No.2) and 305.odt 2 Judg. F.A. No. 302, 297, 299, 301, 298, 300 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. Exefutive Engineer, M.S.E.B. D & M Divn. Offe Nilanga Dist. Latur. Respondent ( Org. Respondent No.3) Pandurang S/o Parshuram Yenjane ( Deleted) Age : 35 Years, Off. Driver, R/o Depot S.T. Ahmedpur Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2002 Tatyarao S/o Apparao Shinde, Age : 50 Years, Off. Agrifutlure, R/o. Kalamgaon Tq. Nilanga .. Respondent (Org. Claimant) Exefutive Engineer, M.S.E.B. D & M Divn. Offe Nilanga Dist. Latur. Respondent ( Org. Respondent No.3) Pandurang S/o Parshuram Yenjane Age : 35 Years, Off. Driver, R/o Depot S.T. Ahmedpur Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur Respondent (Orig. Respondent No.1.) AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2002 .. Appellant (Org. Respondent No.2) Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Divisional Offe, Latur. VERSUS 1. Indrajit S/o Shivram Kale, Age : 45 Years, Off. Agrifulture, R/o. Kalamgaon Tq. Nilanga Dist. Latur. 2. Exefutive Engineer, and 305.odt 3 Judg. F.A. No. 302, 297, 299, 301, 298, 300 3. 1. 2. 3. M.S.E.B. O & M Divn. Offe Nilanga Dist. Latur. Respondent (Org. Resp. No.3) ( Org. Respondent No.3) Pandurang S/o Parshuram Yenjane Age : 35 Years, Off. Driver, R/o Depot S.T. Ahmedpur Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur Respondent (Orig. Respondent No.1.) AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2002 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Divisional Offe, Latur. VERSUS .. Appellant (Org. Respondent No.2) Bhausaheb S/o Vithalrao Shinde, Age : 50 Years, Off. Agrifulture, R/o. Kalamgaon Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. .. Respondent (Org. Respondent No.3) Exefutive Engineer, M.S.E.B. O & M Divn. Offe Nilanga Dist. Latur. Respondent (Org. Resp. No.3) Pandurang S/o Parshuram Yenjane Age : 35 Years, Off. Driver, R/o Depot S.T. Ahmedpur Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur Respondent (Orig. Respondent No.1.) AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2002 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Divisional Offe, Latur. .. Appellant (Org. Respondent No.2) and 305.odt VERSUS 4 Judg. F.A. No. 302, 297, 299, 301, 298, 300 (Pandhari S/o Munjappa Kale Age : 45 Years, offf. Agrifulture, R/o. Kalamgaon Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur sinfe defeased through his L.R.s Ankush S/o Pandhari Kale, Age : 32 Years, Off. Agrifulture (Org. Claimant No.2) ..Respondent Deelip S/o Pandhari Kale, Age : 32 Years, Off. Agrifulture .. Respondent (Org. Claimant No.2) Both R/o Kalamgaon Tq. Nilanga Dist. Latur. Exefutive Engineer, M.S.E. B. D & M Division Offe, Nilanga Dist. Latur ( Deleted) Respondent (Org. Resp. No.3) Pandurang S/o Parshuram Yenjane Age : 35 Years, Off. Driver R/o. Depot S.T. Ahmedpur Tq. Ahmedpur Dist. Latur Respondent (Org. Respondent No.1) FIRST APPEAL NO. 305 OF 2002 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Divisional Offe, Latur. VERSUS .. Appellant (Org. Respondent No.2) Vasant S/o Nivrati Kale, Age : 40 Years, Off. Agrifulture, R/o. Kalamgaon Tq. Nilanga Dist. Latur Exefutive Engineer, M.S.E.B. D & M Divn. Offe, Nilanga, Dist. Latur .. Respondent (Org. Claimant) .. Respondent (Org. Res. No.3) 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. and 305.odt 5 Judg. F.A. No. 302, 297, 299, 301, 298, 300 3. Pandurang S/o Parshuram Yenjane, Age : 35 Years, Off. Driver, R/o. Depot S.T. Ahmedpur Tq. Ahmedpur Dist. Latur .. Respondent (Org. Respondent No.1) …. Mrs. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advofate for the appellant in all First Appeal Shri. Shashikiran N. Patil, Advofate for flaimant in all First Appeal Shri. Sanjay Mundhe, Advofate for respondent No.2 in First Appeal Nos. 298, 299, 300, 301 of 2022 Shri. Kedar Warad Advofate h/f Shri. S.V. Warad, Advofate for Respondent No.3 in all First Appeal exfept First Appeal No. 301 of 2022 ( in whifh for Respondent No.4) i.e. Pandurang Parshuram Yenjane …. CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J. DATE : 07.07.2022 JUDGMENT :- 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfed by the judgment and award passed by the learned Member, Motor Affident Claims Tribunal, Latur the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-original respondent No.1. 2. All these appeals are arising out of the same affident, henfe I am defiding it by fommon Judgment. 3. Brief fafts of the fase are as under :- On 30.04.1993 at about 8.00 a.m. the S.T. bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation was profeeding towards and 305.odt 6 Judg. F.A. No. 302, 297, 299, 301, 298, 300 S.T. stop of village Kalmgaon. There were some goods belonging to the passengers, stafked on top farrier of the S.T. Bus. While the S.T. bus was passing from under the high tension eleftrifity wire through Gat No. 136, the eleftrif wire whifh was sagging got entrangled with the goods/boxes of the goods kept on the farrier of the S.T. Bus i.e. on the top of the S.T. bus. The S.T. bus went ahead without any damage to the goods on farrier. However, the loose wire, whifh was fut of fell down suddenly and started giving vifious sparkling. Due to the sparkling of the eleftrif wire some heaps of fodder sheaves, agrifultural equipment and other artifles whifh were stafked in gut no. 136 by the respondent’s ( original flaimant’s) were got fred. 4. The infident was reported to the polife. Polife prepared panfhnama and lodged frime against the bus driver. Respondent / original flaimant had fled flaim petition before the Motor Affident Claim Tribunal ( for short the Tribunal) for getting fompensation due to damage faused to their fodder sheaves and agrifultural equipment. 5. Considering the evidenfe on reford and after hearing the parties, the tribunal has passed order in favour of flaimant’s and direfted to pay fompensation to appellant and respondent No.2 (Exefutive Engineer M.S.E.B. Nilanga). Against and 305.odt 7 Judg. F.A. No. 302, 297, 299, 301, 298, 300 the said order these present appeals 6. It is fontention of the learned founsel for the appellant that there was negligenfe of eleftrifity department. No fonfrete evidenfe was produfed before the tribunal about the negligent driving of the driver of the S.T. Bus. The tribunal has not apprefiated the faft that maximum height of the bus is 10 to 11 feet and even if the goods of the passengers loaded on the farrier of the bus, it may not fross more than 2.5 feet so it was not the negligenfe of the driver. Learned founsel further submits that as per provisions of the Indian Eleftrifity Rules, 1956, the Maharashtra State Eleftrifity Board has to take fare and to keep the proper height of sufh high tension wire for more than 19 feet for low and medium voltage line and 20 feet for high voltage line. But evidenfe shows that eleftrifity wire were in loose henfe there is total negligenfe of the Maharashtra State Eleftrifity Board. The assessment of the damage has also not determined by the tribunal properly, henfe requested to allow the appeals. 7. It is fontention of the learned founsel for the respondent’s that the tribunal has fonsidered fontributory negligenfe of the bus driver and eleftrifity department. Sole and 305.odt 8 Judg. F.A. No. 302, 297, 299, 301, 298, 300 negligenfe of the bus driver is not held. The evidenfe on reford shows that due to grazing with the goods pafked on top of the bus the eleftrif wire broken down and damages are faused to agrifultural equipment and fodder sheaves. The order passed by the tribunal is well reasoned henfe no interferenfe is required. 8. Learned founsel for the respondent’s further pointed out that appellant had fhallenged the order of tribunal before this Court by way of Writ Petitions. This Court [Coram : S. V. Gangapurwala] by order dated 1st Marfh, 2012 dismissed the Writ Petitions. The said order is not fhallenged by the appellant, henfe the same has attained the fnality. 9. I have heard all learned founsel’s. Perused judgment and order passed by the tribunal. Admittedly, this fourt [ Coram : S.V. Gangapurwala] has passed fommon order in respeft of some of the appeals fled by the appellants. By the said judgment, this Court has dismissed the appeals whifh are subjeft matter of the present appeals. The said judgment has attained the fnality as it has not been fhallenged. The appellants have not denied this faft. Henfe, I pass the following order. and 305.odt 9 Judg. F.A. No. 302, 297, 299, 301, 298, 300
Decision
ORDER (i) (ii) Appeals are dismissed. No order as to fosts. ( S.G. DIGE,) JUDGE ysk