High Court
Facts
{1} FA-965-2016 (J)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 965 OF 20161.Smt. Vimalbai Bhanudas MaliAge- 56 years, Occu. Household2.Kailas Bhanudas Mali,Age- 38 years, Occu- Labour3.Vilas Bhanudas MaliAge- 28 years, Occu- LabourAll R/o. Chinawal, Tq. Raver,Dist. Jalgaon....APPELLANTSVERSUS1.Tapi Prestige Product Pvt. Ltd.,Through; M.P. Kotecha,Age- Major, Occu: Business,R/o. Anjale, Tq. Yawal,Dist. Jalgaon.2.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,Central Phule Market, Jalgaon,Through: Divisional Manager,Branch Office, Jalgaon....RESPONDENTS Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for appellantsMr. Uday S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No. 2Respondent No. 1 served....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. RESERVED ON: 1st AUGUST, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 19th AUGUST, 2024JUDGMENT:1.Admit. Heard finally with the consent of parties.Bhagyawant Punde {2} FA-965-2016 (J)2.This appeal filed by appellants/original claimantsunder section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challengesimpugned judgment and award dated 26.09.2013, passed byMember, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & District Judge- 3Jalgaon, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 173 of 2007,thereby dismissing claim filed by claimants.3.Claimants filed claim petition contending that on11.05.2006 Bhanudas Laxman Mali was driving his motorcycleNo. MH-19-X-4213, Shaikh Gafur Shaikh Bismillah, was thepillion rider. They were returning from village Vivara afterattending marriage ceremony. At 8.00 pm on Raver-Savda road,on State Highway 4, near Nimbhora phata, one truck bearing No.MH-19-5928 came from the opposite direction in high speed andin rash and negligent manner and gave violent dash to themotorcycle, resulting into head injury to Bhanudas, due to whichhe died on the spot. At the time of accident, Bhanudas was 52years of age and was working as mason since last 25 years andwas earning Rs. 300 to 500 per day. Claimants, therefore,claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.4.Owner of the truck/respondent No. 1opposed/respondent No. 1 opposed the claim by taking generalBhagyawant Punde {3} FA-965-2016 (J)denial and defences. Insurance Company/respondent No. 2opposed the claim contending that deceased was not holdingvalid and effective driving license and he was rash and negligentwhile driving motorcycle, which resulted into accident.The Tribunal after recording evidence came to aconclusion that the deceased was rash and negligent, due towhich accident has taken place, he was not authorized to drivethe motorcycle, hence, dismissed the claim. Claimants areaggrieved by the same. 5.Heard learned advocate for claimants and learnedadvocate for Respondent No. 2. Though served, none appears forrespondent No. 1.6.Learned advocate for claimants assailed theimpugned judgment and award contending that the Tribunal hasignored the settled legal position and has recorded wrong findingof fact that claimants have failed to prove that the truck driverwas rash and negligent and has caused the accident. He submitsthat in fact charge sheet is filed against the truck driver for rashand negligent driving and causing accident. He therefore submitsthat dismissal of claim petition is unsustainable and first appealmay be allowed and matter be remanded back to the Tribunal toBhagyawant Punde {4} FA-965-2016 (J)decide just and fair compensation.7.Learned advocate for insurance company, on theother hand, supported the impugned judgment and award. Hesubmits that from the material placed on record the Tribunal isright in holding that the deceased was not authorized to drivethe motorcycle and he was imbalanced and his motorcycle cameinto rear wheel of the truck and claimants have failed to showhow the truck driver was negligent in causing the accident. Hetherefore submits that no case is made out by the claimants tointerfere in the impugned judgment and award and first appealmay be dismissed.8.Heard learned advocate for claimants and learnedadvocate for insurance company at length. Perused the record.9.Record indicates that FIR (Exhibit-32) is registeredwith Nimbhora Police Station against the driver of the truck atC.R. No. 24/2006, under sections 304(A), 337, 427, 279 ofIndian Penal Code and under section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act.Inquest panchnama, post mortem report, statement of ShaikhGafur Shaikh Bismillah recorded during the investigation,accident report form (Exhibit-37) are placed on record by theBhagyawant Punde {5} FA-965-2016 (J)claimants to prove their case that the truck driver was rash andnegligent in driving the truck and he has caused the accident.Charge sheet (Exhibit-38) in C.R. No. 24/2006 is filed againstthe driver of the offending truck on 05.06.2006. All thesedocuments show that after conducting investigation the policehave filed charge sheet against the truck driver for causingaccident by rash and negligent driving.10.It is settled legal position that claimants have toestablish their case on the touchstone of preponderance ofprobability and not on standard of proof beyond reasonabledoubt.(Bimla Devi and Ors. vs. Himachal Road TransportCorporation and Ors., AIR 2009 SC 2819).11.In Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., MANU/SC/0002/2001, it is held;“It is sufficient that negligence on the part of thedriver or owner is established from the totality of circumstances.”In view of aforesaid documents placed on record byclaimants, they have discharged the preliminary burden ofshowing that the truck driver was rash and negligent in drivingthe truck and therefore accident has taken place. Adverse findingrecorded by the Tribunal is therefore unsustainable in law andBhagyawant Punde
Legal Reasoning
{6} FA-965-2016 (J)facts of the present case. 12.In Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prabhakaran VijayaKumar and Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 527 it is held:“It is well settled that if the words used in abeneficial or welfare statute are capable of twoconstructions, the one which is more in consonace withthe object of the Act and for the benefit of the personfor whom the Act was made should be preferred. Inother words, beneficial or welfare statues should begiven a liberal and not the literal or strict interpretation.”13.Since the provision of compensation incorporated inMotor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in view ofaforestated principle laid down by the Apex Court, it shouldreceive a liberal and wider interpretation. Hence, interpretationwhich would advance the object of the said provision and serveits purpose needs to be preferred in the present case. Hence, itis held that the accident has caused due to rash and negligentdriving of truck driver, in which deceased has expired and henceclaim petition filed by claimants ought to have been consideredon merits by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has failed to appreciatematerial on record in the proper perspective and in consonancewith the settled legal position. The Tribunal has misdirected itselfin dismissing the claim of the claimants. The impugned judgmentand award passed by the Tribunal is therefore unsustainable inBhagyawant Punde {7} FA-965-2016 (J)law and facts of the present case. Hence, the following order:ORDERi)First Appeal is allowed.ii)Impugned judgment and award dated 26.09.2013,passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal &District Judge- 3 Jalgaon, in Motor Accident ClaimPetition No. 173 of 2007 is hereby quashed and setaside.iii)Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 173 of 2007 isremanded back to the Tribunal for adjudicating just andfair compensation to be awarded to the claimants.iv)Parties will be at liberty to lead additional evidence, ifany in support of their respective contentions aboutquantum of compensation.v)The claim petition shall be decided within six monthsfrom the date of first appearance of the parties.vi)Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on02/09/2024. Notice in that behalf therefore is dispensedwith. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] Bhagyawant Punde