The court established that both drivers shared liability for the accident, with 75% attributed to the bus driver and 25% to the auto-rickshaw driver, while enhancing the compensation amount based on established legal principles.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant, MSRTC, challenges the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in MACP No.590/199, dated 08/08/2005, which granted compensation to the claimants, dependents of the deceased, who was traveling in the auto-rickshaw that met with an accident involving an MSRTC bus.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

On 10/09/1998, Dilip Pandit Sonawane was traveling in auto- rickshaw from Jalgaon to Asoda. At around 6:00 p.m., near Khari Doha, the auto-rickshaw collided with MSRTC bus bearing No. MH-20/A-4697 coming from the opposite direction. The auto-rickshaw, bearing No. MH- 19/8141, in which Dilip Sonawane was traveling, was involved in the collision, resulting in his death at the spot. The claimants, being the legal heirs and dependents of late Dilip Sonawane, filed a claim petition against MSRTC, the auto-rickshaw owner, and its insurer, seeking compensation for loss of dependency.

4. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal held that the MSRTC bus driver was solely negligent in causing the accident and directed MSRTC to pay the entire compensation amounting of Rs.3,60,788/- to the dependents. The Tribunal based its calculation considering the deceased's monthly income of Rs. 2,583/- and his age at the time of accident being 32 years.

5. Challenging this order, the learned Counsel for the MSRTC contends that the case involved contributory negligence and that both the auto-rickshaw owner and its insurer should bear a portion of the liability. The learned counsel for MSRTC argued that the auto-rickshaw was also partially responsible for the accident. The learned counsel for MSRTC referred to the spot panchanama, the complaint filed by occupant of the rickshaw, and the testimony of the rickshaw driver. He submits that the rickshaw driver was an interested witness who shifted the entire blame on to the driver of the MSRTC bus. The spot panchanama and the complaint indicated that the auto-rickshaw was also partially responsible, and thus the compensation should have been apportioned between the owners of both vehicles.

6. After reviewing the original record, with the assistance of learned counsel Mr. M. K. Goyanka for appellant/ MSRTC and learned Counsel Mr. D. P. Deshpande for respondent No.9/ Insurance Company, it is to be noted that the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has observed that the road where the accident occurred was 18 feet wide, with 11 feet occupied by the bus. The auto-rickshaw on impact was taken of the road and went on to the mud lane. It was also established that the bus had only one functioning headlight on the left side. The accident occurred in the evening during rain, reducing visibility. While both drivers were driving vehicles in high speed, the totality of the circumstances and the complaint filed by the rickshaw occupant, along with the chargesheet filed against the drivers of both the vehicles, suggest that the auto-rickshaw was 25% responsible for the accident, and MSRTC was 75% responsible. Therefore, the apportionment should be 75% to MSRTC and 25% to the auto-rickshaw owner and its insurer.

7. Regarding the compensation awarded, although the Tribunal computed it based on the deceased’s monthly income of Rs. 2,583/-, it appears that the further compensation under various heads was not correctly calculated as per ratio laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Trivedi & Ors. vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & Ors. [ (2015) 4 SCC 237 ] has held that compensation must be just, even if no cross-objections or appeals are filed by the claimants, the same should be granted by the High Court.

8. After applying the appropriate multiplier and adding conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ], the revised compensation amount is Rs.4,27,356/- with interest