IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced the principle that in motor accident claims, the burden of proving negligence lies with the party contesting the claim, and that 'just compensation' must be calculated based on the total income of the deceased, including all relevant allowances.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This is an Appeal filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the "MV Act") by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited (the "MSRTC"), which owned the offending vehicle, viz. the MSRTC Bus, against the judgment and award dtd. 4/10/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (the "MACT, Mumbai") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 606 of 2015, whereby the Appellant - MSRTC has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.18, 91, 600.00 inclusive of No Fault Liability (the "NFL") with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of institution of the claim, till realisation.

2. Since, by earlier orders of this Court, the Appeal has been directed to be finally heard at the stage of admission, the matter is heard for final disposal. Compilation of documents have been filed in the matter. I have also heard Mr. N.V. Bhutekar, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Niketan Nakhawa for the Respondents and with their able assistance, I have perused the papers and proceedings as well as the compilation of documents in the matter and considered the rival contentions.

3. Earlier the claim petition was filed with the MACT, Mumbai by the widow and the son of one Kashinath Zanje, who died in an accident on 21/2/2015 on Mumbai-Goa Highway. On 21/2/2015, at about 18.20 hours, Mr. Kashinath Zanje was proceeding on motor cycle, when he reached Mouje Chabhar Khind on Mumbai-Goa Highway, MSRTC Bus bearing No. MH-14-BT-1926 ( the "offending vehicle") came in high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to the impact, it is stated that Mr. Kashinath Zanje fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to the Rural Hospital at Mahad, however, as he sustained serious injuries, he was moved for further treatment to J. J. Hospital, Mumbai where he was admitted but despite treatment he expired on 25/6/2015 after which postmortem was performed at J. J. Hospital. Since the bus was owned by the AppellantMSRTC, the Respondents herein preferred a claim against the Appellant herein for a compensation of Rs.50, 00, 000.00 with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Before the Tribunal, the Appellant contended that the accident had not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle, but it occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased and therefore, requested that the claim application be dismissed.

4. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, the evidence and after hearing the Counsel for the parties held that the claimants, viz., the Respondents herein, proved that the deceased died due to the subject motor accident on 21/2/2015 and that they have also proved that the accident took place because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the MSRTC bus. Further, observing that even though the driver of the offending vehicle justified himself that the bike rider came from wrong side and dashed to the ST bus on the conductor side, however, since the version of the oral evidence about the sole negligence of the bike rider did not find its place in the police papers like FIR, spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, postmortem report whereas the said documents disclosed that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the ST bus by the driver, in the absence of any documentary proof on record, with respect to the sole negligence of the deceased, the Tribunal held that the Appellant-MSRTC could not prove that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the deceased.

5. Considering the age of the deceased, income of the deceased and dependency as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017 ACJ 2700. and Sube Singh and Anr Vs. Shyam Singh (Dead), AIR 2018 SC 1195. with respect to future prospects as well as multiplier, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as well as compensation under the convent