High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} 918-APEAL-4277-2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 4277 OF 2016Maharashtra State Regional TransportCorporation, Through Depot ManagerMSRTC, Jalgaon Division,Jalgaon.….APPELLANT [Orig. Respondent No. 2]VERSUS1. Kiran Dharmaraj Chavan Age- 51 yrs, Occu- Service.2. Bhushan Kiran Chavan Age- 23 yrs, Occu-Education.3. Prabhodhan Kiran Chavan Age- 17 yrs, Occ- Education, [Resp. No. 3 being minor through its legal guardian father i.e. respondent No. 1] All R. No. 1 to 3 are R/o. Plot No. 7, Prabhat Colony, Jalgaon Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.4. Prakash Shankar Patil Age: 60 years, Occ: Retired (Bus Driver), R/o. Plot No. 31, Gut No. 101, Shivshakti Nagar, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. …..RESPONDENTS [Res. No. 1 to 3 are Ori.Claimants & Resp. No. 4is Ori. Resp. No. 1]…..Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for AppellantMr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. DATE : 25th SEPTEMBER 2024Bhagyawant Punde {2} 918-APEAL-4277-2016ORAL JUDGMENT :1.Heard.2.Admit. Taken up for final hearing with the consent ofthe parties.3.This appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor VehiclesAct by Maharashtra State Regional Transport Corporation,challenges judgment and award dated 17.03.2016 passed byMember, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. No.25 of 2012.4.Facts giving rise to the present first appeal, in brief,can be stated thus;It is the case of claimants that on 08.09.2011 atabout 7.00 am Manjusha Kiran Chavan was driving her Activascooter at Swantatra Chowk, near Aakashwani Kendra, Jalgaon.S.T. bus no. MH-14-B-0379 gave dash to Activa scooter no. MH-19-AJ-6485 driven by Manjusha, due to which she came underthe cleaner side rear wheel of bus. She was admitted in thehospital and during treatment expired after two months ofaccident. Multiple operations were performed on her till herdeath. Manjusha was working as Assistant Teacher RamlaljiBhagyawant Punde {3} 918-APEAL-4277-2016Choubey Kanya Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Jalgaon and was drawingsalary of Rs. 32,361/-.5.FIR about the accident was lodged by RajeshKarjotkar with Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon which isregistered at C.R. No. 266/2011 under Sections 279, 337, 427 ofIPC and under Section 184 of M.V. Act. On completion ofinvestigation, charge sheet is filed against driver of the bus.Claimants, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 50 Lakhsfrom MSRTC.After recording of evidence and hearing the parties,Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded compensation of Rs.55,99,680/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Appellant-MSRTC is aggrieved by this judgment and award. 6.Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learnedadvocate for claimants.7.Learned advocate for appellant by relying on spotpanchnama submits that there was total negligence on the partof deceased which has caused accident and therefore claimantswere not entitled for compensation. According to him, deceasedhad come under the cleaner side rear wheel of the bus,Bhagyawant Punde {4} 918-APEAL-4277-2016therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the driver of thebus. He therefore submits that Tribunal has erred in recording afinding that bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the bus.In the alternate, he submits that excessive quantum is awardedby the Tribunal and compensation is liable to be reduced.8.Learned advocate for respondents No. 1 to3/claimants, on the other hand, supported the impugnedjudgment and award. He submits that Tribunal is justified inholding that due to the rash and negligent driving of the busdriver, the accident has taken place. He submits that taking intoconsideration the income of deceased at the time of accident anddependency of claimants, Tribunal is justified in deciding thequantum of compensation. He therefore submits that there is nomerit in the appeal and appeal may be dismissed.9.Heard learned advocate for appellant and learnedadvocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 at length. Perused therecord.10.It is a matter of record that in the accident deceasedhad come under the cleaner side rear wheel of the bus. Eyewitness of the accident has lodged FIR stating that on hearingloud noise, he saw that due to dash given by bus, one lady hadBhagyawant Punde {5} 918-APEAL-4277-2016come under the cleaner side rear wheel of the S.T. Bus. Peoplecalled out driver and asked him to take bus in reverse direction,which was so taken and then deceased was removed from thewheel. FIR further states that bus driver has driven bus in rashand negligent manner and gave dash to the deceased. Informanthas witnessed the accident. 11.Learned advocate for the appellant has read spotpanchnama and submitted that width of the road is not stated,hence, the spot panchnama does not give correct picture ofaccident. He may be justified in arguing so, but only becausewidth of the road is not stated in the spot panchnama this byitself is not sufficient to deprive claimants from compensation.Admittedly, charge sheet is filed against the bus driver fordriving the bus in rash and negligent manner and causingaccident. In this view of the matter, claimants have dischargedtheir initial burden of proving that accident has occurred due torash and negligent driving on the part of bus driver.12.The Tribunal by appreciating material on record hasrightly recorded a finding that “filing of charge-sheet by thePolice against Bus driver shows that bus driver is involved forrash and negligent act in this accident.” It is further observedBhagyawant Punde
Legal Reasoning
{6} 918-APEAL-4277-2016that “the Opponent has not examined the S.T. bus driver nor haslead any evidence on oath to rebut rash, negligent act of S.T.bus driver. In absence of evidence, the contributory negligenceof deceased cannot be considered.” These findings recorded bythe Tribunal are in consonance with the material placed onrecord and no fault can be found with these reasons given by theTribunal.13.There is no substance in the contention of appellantthat excessive quantum is awarded by the Tribunal. It is amatter of record that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.32,511/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly calculated annualsalary of deceased at Rs. 3,90,000/-. The Tribunal has deductedRs. 34,000/- towards income tax and profession tax and isdeducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses. Then byrelying on decision of Sarla Verma, and adding 30% futureprospects and applying multiplier of 14, figure comes to Rs.43,20,680/-. Then non pecuniary damages i.e. funeral expenses,consortium, loss of love and affection, ambulance charges andtotal medical expenses incurred by claimants are added in thesaid figure and Tribunal has rightly arrived at figure ofcompensation at Rs. 55,99,680/-.Bhagyawant Punde {7} 918-APEAL-4277-201614.The Tribunal has assigned proper reasons in supportof impugned judgment and award and has awarded just and faircompensation to the claimants. No case is made out by theappellant to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. Firstappeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] Bhagyawant Punde