Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 882
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, J.
The Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Sunita wd/o Mangesh Suryawanshi & Ors. – RESPONDENTS
FIRST APPEAL NO. 622 OF 2012
Decided On : 07-07-2017
For the Appellant : Ms. B.V. Reddy, Adv. h/f Shri V.H. Kedar, counsel
For the Respondents: Mrs. Saboo, counsel
The main legal point established is the determination of liability in a motor accident claim, based on the evidence presented regarding the cause of the accident.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Sections 279 and 304A IPC - The court discussed the evidence presented, including the FIR, spot panchnama, and oral testimony, to determine the cause of the accident. It found that the rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver was the cause of the accident, holding the appellant liable for compensation. The court also discussed the quantum of compensation based on the deceased's income and personal expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a motorcycle accident with a bus, resulting in his death. The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation, which was granted by the Tribunal. The appellant challenged the judgment, arguing that the Bus driver was not solely responsible for the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including the spot panchnama and oral testimony, supported the conclusion that the Bus driver's rash and negligent driving caused the accident, holding the appellant liable for compensation.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the cause of the accident - whether it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver or the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the spot panchnama and oral evidence to establish the cause of the accident, concluding that the Bus driver was at fault.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and award of the Tribunal granting compensation to the respondents were upheld.
1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and award dated 17/01/2012 passed by Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in M.A.C.P. No. 65/2006, thereby awarding the compensation of Rs.17,36,960/- to the respondents-claimants, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:-
On 22/11/2005, in the afternoon, deceased Mangesh was proceeding on his Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing no. MH-31-BV-1206 towards Mokshadham Square at Nagpur. When the deceased was moving along Ghat Road, near Mokshadham S.T. Quarters, MSRTC Bus bearing No. MH-40-9634 which was moving in the same direction, dashed at the backside of the motorcycle. As a result of which, deceased fell down and sustained injuries. He was rushed to the Government Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur, where he succumbed to the injuries on the very day.
3. The police had registered the case against the Bus driver for negligence and accident. The respondent nos.1 to 3 herein, who are the widow and the children of the deceased, therefore, filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.35,00,000/-.
4. This petition came to be resisted by the appellant vide written statement at Exh.14 contending inter alia that the sole cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It was submitted that deceased was coming from opposite direction on his motorcycle in a very high speed. He then came to extreme right side of the road and gave dash to the right side of the Bus. Therefore, as the cause of accident was entirely the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, Bus driver cannot be held liable for the same in any way. Hence, liability of paying the compensation cannot be fastened on appellant.
5. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues at Exh.27. In support of their claim, respondent no.1 examined herself and produced on record the copy of FIR (Exh.41), spot panchnama (Exh.42) and the income tax returns of the deceased at Exh.46 and Exh.47.
6. As against it, on behalf of the appellant, the concerned Bus driver, by name Subhash Chipade entered into witness box to prove that the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself.
7. On appreciation of their evidence, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.17,36,960/- to the respondents.
8. While challenging this judgment and order of the Tribunal, submission of learned counsel for appellant is that, respondents have not examined any eye witness to the accident. The only evidence available on record is that of Bus driver, who has categorically deposed that it was the motorcycle of the deceased, which came from behind and gave dash to his Bus. Bus driver Chipade came to know about the accident only when he heard the commotion from backside of his Bus. It is urged that the learned Tribunal has not at all considered the oral evidence of Bus driver and wrongly fastened the liability for the accident on Bus driver alone. It is urged that spot panchnama also supports the evidence of Bus driver to prove the manner in which the accident has occurred. Hence, according to learned counsel for appellant, the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal holding appellant liable to pay the compensation amount to the respondents, needs to be quashed and set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents had supported the judgment of the Tribunal for the reasons stated there in.
10. In view of these rival submissions advanced before me, the first point which arise for my determination is, whether the cause of the accident was rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver or that of the deceased?
11. In this case, admittedly, respondent no.1, who has examined herself in support of her claim, was not an eye witness to the accident. H
