Judgment :

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants against Digitally dismissal of the claim petition.

signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date:

2024.12.11 +0530

2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the accident caused due to sole negligence of the driver of respondent- corporation. An offence was registered against the driver of the respondent-corporation but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. While dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal has observed that the claimants have miserably failed to prove that the S.T.bus driver was driving the S.T.bus in rash and negligent manner and, on that ground, the claim petition is dismissed, which is erroneous. Learned counsel further submitted that it has come on record that the driver of the respondent- corporation came on wrong side of the road and gave dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. The spot-panchanama shows the negligence of the driver of the offending bus but it has not been considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that deceased was skilled worker, he had completed ITI and he had worked in various companies like Telco, Telco, Thermax, Bebcok and Wilcox Limited, K.S.N. Pumps Ltd..and he was drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. He was agriculturist and doing milk business and he was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from it. Learned counsel further submitted that he was the only earning member of his family. At the time of the accident, he was 30 year old, hence, requested to allow the appeal.

3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent-corporation that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased as he was riding the motorcycle in high and excessive speed. He came from opposite direction and gave dash to the stopped bus. No negligence of the driver of the offending bus was proved before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered evidence on record, on that basis, claim petition is dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is legal and valid. No interference is required in it.

4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned judgment and order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramati, District - Pune (for short “the Tribunal”).

5. It is claimants’ case that on 9^th April 2004, the deceased was riding motorcycle and his friend was pillion-rider. When he was proceeding on Pune-Solapur Highway, the offending bus came from opposite direction and gave dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to dash, the deceased died on the spot, whereas the pillion rider was seriously injured. The accident occurred at 11.30 pm.

5.1. To prove the negligence of the driver of the S.T. bus, the claimants have examined pillion-rider – Bapu Aadake (PW2). He has stated that on the day of the incident, he was pillion-rider on the motorcycle of the deceased. They were proceedings towards Indapur on Pune-Solapur Highway. At that time, the offending bus came from opposite direction, it was in high and excessive speed and gave dash to the motorcycle. Due to dash, the deceased died on spot and he was seriously injured. Offence was registered against the driver of the S.T.Bus. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that deceased was riding the motorcycle in high speed. To prove its defense, the respondent/corporation has examined driver - Shri Ramesh Sutar of the offending bus. He has stated that on the day of incident when he was proceeding on Pune-Solapur highway, the bus was in slow speed. At that time, one motorcycle was coming from Pune side, hence, he stopped the bus. The said motorcycle gave dash to the bus. The accident occurred due to negligence of the motorcyclist and police has registered false offense against him. In cross-examination, he stated that offence in respect of said crime is registered against him and at the time of the accident, he was not driving the bus more than 80 k.p.h.. While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Tr