JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant, who is the original claimant, has challenged the dismissal of his claim i.e. M.A.C.P. No. 07 of 1999 at the hands of learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal), under judgment dated 17.11.2003. The appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of injuries which he sustained in the motor vehicle accident took place on 26.01.1998 at about 10.15 p.m. at Railway Station, Aurangabad.

2. According to the appellant-claimant, the accident took place on the aforesaid date at about 10.15 p.m. at Railway Station City Bus Stop at Aurangabad. At the relevant time, the appellant, in order to go to Shahganj, boarded ST Bus No.MCA-7213 but the Respondent No.2 i.e. driver of the said bus, in the absence of any signal from the conductor, abruptly started the bus and, therefore, left leg of the appellant got crushed between the footsteps of the bus and platform. The appellant fell down from the bus and became unconscious. The appellant was thereafter taken to Government Medical College & Hospital, Aurangabad, locally known as “Ghati” Hospital, wherein he was treated. Due to crush injury, his four fingers of left leg were amputated resulting into 43% permanent disability. Thus, it is claimed by the appellant that the accident took place due to negligence of Respondent No.2 i.e. driver of the said bus and, therefore, the respondent-MSRTC is liable to pay him compensation.

3. The learned Tribunal, after holding trial, rejected the claim and hence this appeal.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition erroneously without considering the evidence on record in proper perspective. He pointed out that the learned Tribunal ignored the spot panchanama Exhibit-26 where from it appears that there was a platform at the place of accident. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly held that the accident had taken place only due to negligence of the appellant and, there was no role of Respondent No.2-driver in it. According to him, the learned Tribunal unnecessarily relied upon the report filed by the concerned Police Inspector who investigated the matter, without examining him. In the alternative, he submitted that the report itself indicates two versions and, therefore, cannot be relied upon to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant himself was negligent. He further pointed out that the evidence of conductor is of no use in determining who was at fault. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal, without examining the concerned Police Inspector, relied upon the MLC statement without confronting the same to the appellant. He pointed out that the statements recorded by the Police Inspector, upon which his report was based, cannot be considered as a documentary proof in respect of negligence of the appellant-claimant since the same were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of contradicting only. He, therefore, submits that considering the age, notional income and appropriate multiplier, the learned Tribunal should have determined just and proper compensation. The learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of his contentions, relied upon following two judgments :

1. Mallikarjun Vs. The National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2014) 14 SCC 396; and

2. Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701.

5. On the contrary, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1-MSRTC has strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-claimant and supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the report Exhibit-15 clearly indicates that the accident took place due to sole negligence of the appellant-claimant himself and, therefore, the learned Tri