The negligence of the driver needs to be proved under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the principle of fault liability applies. The court also considered the income of the deceased to calculate compensation.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

1. Heard Shri A. J. Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellants/original claimants and Shri R.S. Charpe, learned advocate for respondent No. 1-MSRTC. Respondent No. 2-Driver died and accordingly, proceedings abated against him.

2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the findings of the Claims Tribunal on the point of rashness and negligence of the S.T. Driver is correct or not. The Claims Tribunal has answered that issue against the claimants and dismissed the petition. For this reason, Claims Tribunal has not gone into the issue of income of the deceased, thereby determining the amount of compensation.

3. Before the Claims Tribunal on the point of accident, there was oral evidence of two witnesses from the side of the claimants. Whereas the bus driver himself entered into witness box. Apart from oral evidence, documentary in the form of FIR, Spot Panchanama and Post-Mortem Report was available before the Claims Tribunal.

4. Learned advocate for the claimants on one hand tried to place reliance on the evidence of two witnesses and on the other hand tried to find fault with the reasoning given by the Claims Tribunal. Even according to him, the Claims Tribunal ought to have applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur i.e. the circumstances speak for themselves. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following Judgments:-

(i) M.S.R.T.C. vs. Smt. Manjulabai Wd/o Bhagwanji Nagpure and Others, 2013 SCC Online Bom 871.

(ii) Anusaya W/o Laxman Patil and Others vs. MSRTC, 1996 SCC Online Bom 617.

(iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vimal Babasaheb Hulgunde and Others, 2019 SCC Online Bom 1298.

5. On the point of evidentiary value of the police papers, he relied upon Judgment in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Aurangabad vs. Babulal S/o Chunilal Somani and Others, 2015 (1) Mh. L.J. 71. According to him, the income of the deceased was Rs. 8,000/- (from plastic and agricultural business) and accordingly, he requested to apply guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (13) Scale 12.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate for MSRTC submitted that unless and until the negligence of the S.T. driver is proved, his master i.e. MSRTC cannot be held responsible. In support of his contention, he relied upon following two Judgments:-

(i) Minu B. Mehta vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, 1977 AIR (SC) 1248.

(ii) Narayan Kalangutkar and Another vs. Shabir Yasin Mirban and Others, 2012 (4) AIR Bom R 541.

According to him, the Claims Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of two witnesses and in fact, the evidence of S.T. driver, who is an eye-witness to the incident, is more reliable. On the point of income, he submitted that the agricultural income is not proved and the father of the deceased cannot be said to be dependent as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi's case (supra).

CONCLUSION

7. I have perused the evidence of two witnesses i.e. Waman Maroti Wandhare (sitting in the office of Newspaper of Sinhazep) and Laxman Tawade (occupant of ST bus) very minutely. I have also read the evidence of S.T. Driver - Sk. Katru S/o Sk. Bharu Mus. I have also considered the reasoning given by the Claims Tribunal while rejecting the evidence of these two eyewitnesses.

8. It is but natural that the widow of the deceased unless accompanying the deceased is unable to throw some light about the manner of the accident. Her evidence ultimately is on the basis of information received by her and on the basis of police papers. It is settled law that the Claims Tribunal is expected to conduct a summary inquiry. It is also a settled law that the Claims Tribunal is supposed to decide the matter by applying the test of “preponderance of probabilities.” The test of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” cannot be made applicable to s