SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Bom) 3039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
P.R. Bora, J.
Anisabee Shaikh Javid @ Javed Patve & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Suresh Dhirsing Padvi & Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 591 of 2014
Decided On : 05-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
P.C. Mayure Advocate for Appellants;; For the Respondent No. 1 - Deleted;; Shri S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No. 2;; Shri S.R. Bagal, Advocate for Respondent No. 3

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure - Evidence Act - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 129 - Motor Accident Claim - Claimed compensation – Compensation awarded – Challenged - Appellants, who are hereinafter referred to as claimants, had preferred aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation on account of death alleging same to be caused in a vehicular accident happened having involvement of a dumper bearing registration No. owned by present respondent no.2 and insured with present respondent no.3 - It was case of claimants before Tribunal that, on when deceased along with his brother-in-law were proceeding on motorcycle from side to Railway over bridge side, their motorcycle was dashed by offending dumper and in accident so happened, deceased was severely injured and ultimately succumbed to accidental injuries on same day while under treatment in Civil Hospital - Claimants had alleged that, accident in question happened because of sole negligence of driver of offending dumper - Quantum of compensation whether rightly determined by Tribunal – Held, Court have already recorded a finding that, no negligence can be attributed on part of deceased Javed in occurrence of the alleged accident since he was a pillion rider on motorcycle, one of vehicle involved in alleged accident - Court to determine extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately - In view of law laid down as above, Court have already held that, finding recorded by Tribunal disentitling claimants from 70% of total compensation determined by it on ground that, in occurrence of alleged accident only 30% negligence was noticed to be of driver of truck, against owner and insurer of which, claim petition was filed, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside and quashed - In view of settled legal position and discussion made as above, owner and insurer of offending truck are liable to pay to claimants entire amount of compensation as has been determined in present matter - Judgment and order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. is quashed and set aside - Pending Civil Application if any stands disposed of.

JUDGMENT

P.R. Bora, J. (Oral) - The appellants original claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.26 of 2011 decided by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nandurbar on 23.10.2012 have preferred the present appeal challenging the said Judgment and Award.

2. The appellants, who are hereinafter referred to as the claimants, had preferred the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of Shaikh Javid @ Javed Patve alleging the same to be caused in a vehicular accident happened on 23.06.2011 having involvement of a dumper bearing registration No.MH39/E992 owned by present respondent no.2 and insured with present respondent no.3. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that, on 23.06.2011 when deceased Javid along with his brother-in-law Jakir were proceeding on motorcycle from Dhule Chaufuli side to Railway over bridge side, their motorcycle was dashed by the offending dumper and in the accident so happened, deceased was severely injured and ultimately succumbed to the accidental injuries on the same day while under treatment in the Civil Hospital at Dhule. The claimants had alleged that, the accident in question happened because of the sole negligence of the driver of the offending dumper. The claimants had, therefore, claimed the compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/jointly and severally from the owner and insurer of the said dumper.

3. The owner and the driver of the said dumper though appeared before the Tribunal, did not file their written-statement and the petition was proceeded without their written-statement.

4. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company had filed its written statement and had resisted the petition on various grounds. Insurance Company had taken the defence of negligence on part of the deceased in occurrence of the alleged accident. The income, age and the dependency etc., were also disputed by the Insurance Company.

5. In order to substantiate the contentions raised in the claim petition, claimant No.1 -Anisabee deposed before the Tribunal. In addition to the oral evidence of Claimant No.1 Anisabee, the claimants had placed on record the copy of the appointment letter issued in the name of deceased Javid @ Javed from the Railway Department and had also placed on record the certified copies of the police papers pertaining to the alleged accident. None of the respondents adduced any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after having assessed the oral and documentary evidence brought on record though determined the amount of compensation payable to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 16,75,000/, held the claimants entitled for the amount of Rs. 5,05,000/only from the owner and insurer of the offending dumper recording a finding that, in occurrence of the alleged accident, the negligence on part of deceased Javed was to the extent of 70% and as such, the claimants were entitled to receive only 30% of the amount from the owner and insurer of the offending dumper. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants assailed the impugned Judgment on various grounds. The learned Counsel submitted that, deceased Javid was a pillion rider on the motorcycle of Jakir, when the alleged accident happened. The learned Counsel submitted that, in no case, it can be said that there was any contribution of deceased Javid in occurrence of the alleged accident. In the circumstances, according to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal has manifestly erred in holding the negligence to the extent of 70% on the part of deceased Javid. The learned Counsel further submitted that, it was the specific case of the claimants that, in occurrence of the alleged accident, there was absolutely no negligence of the motorcycle rider and the entire negligence was of the dumper driver. The learned Counsel further submitted that, even if it is assumed that there was some negligence on part of the mot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top