1

1311.04FA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1311 OF 2004

Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation,

Through its Divisional Controller,

Dhule.

.. APPELLANT

VERSUS

1.

Shakuntala Santosh Bedse,

Age 42 years, Occ. Household.

2.

Sandhya d/o. Santosh Bedse,

Age 22 years, Occ. Education.

3.

Anil Santosh Bedse,

Age 20 yeasr, Occ. Education.

4.

Chandrakant Santosh Bedse,

Age 19 years, Occ. Education.

All Residents of Sakri,

Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. .. RESPONDENTS

…

Mr.D.S.Bagul, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sanket N. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent nos.1

to 4.

...

CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.

Reserved on : 29.06.2022

Pronounced on: 21.07.2022

2

1311.04FA

JUDGMENT :

1.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award

passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Dhule, directing the appellant to pay to the

respondents a sum of Rs.1,29,776/- with costs along with

interest, the appellant has approached this Court.

2.

Brief facts of the case are under :-

It is the case of the claimants (respondents) that on

05.12.1988 at about 1.30 p.m. when deceased Santosh

Bedse, was traveling on his Rajdoot motor cycle along with

his friend Jagdish Bhika Bhadane, Bus bearing No. MWQ

6251 came from opposite direction, which was driven by

Bus driver (original respondent no.2) in a high speed rashly

and negligently, gave dash to Rajdoot Motor Cycle from

front side. In the said accident, Santosh Bedse and his friend

died on the spot. The damage was caused to motor cycle to

the tune of Rs.15000/-.

3.

The appellant contested the claim petition by

3

1311.04FA

filing written statement before the learned Tribunal

contending that driver of the bus was not negligent in

driving the bus. The deceased himself was at fault and

without observing rules, tried to over take another bus in

rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the accident

took place. Actually, it was negligence of deceased and not

bus driver, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4.

The learned Member, Motor Accident Claim

Tribunal has been pleased to partly allow the claim petition

and awarded the compensation as referred above. Against

the said order, this appeal.

5.

The learned counsel for the appellant has raised

the following points :-

(A)

That the learned Member of the Tribunal failed

to consider that the motor cyclist was on the

wrong side, therefore, the accident took place.

(B)

That the act of trying to overtake a vehicle

without verifying about on-coming traffic is an

act of negligence.

4

1311.04FA

(C)

That merely because the vehicle in front had

allegedly given signal to overtake, does not

mean that the motor-cyclist should have

proceeded to over-take without verifying about

the vehicles coming from the opposite side.

(D)

That the learned Member of the Tribunal failed

to appreciate that the motor cyclist had not

verified about the on-coming traffic and on

account of his error of judgment the accident

had taken place.

(E)

That the ST Bus was on the correct side and the

driver had not committed any breach of duty or

rule and hence he was not negligent.

(F)

That the learned Member of the Tribunal failed

to discuss the duties of the motor-cyclist while

trying to overtake another vehicle and he has

merely considered the duties of the Appellant’s

driver.

(G)

That the driver’s version should have been

accepted and it was wrongly disbelieved.

(H)

That the bus is bound to be in great speed, as it

was a clear road and at any rate speed is not a

5

1311.04FA

criteria for fastening liability.

(I)

That the question of negligence was wrongly

decided.

(J)

That at any rate it is a case of contributory

negligence. Further, the amount of income and

dependency calculated are excessive.

(K)

That Multiplier adopted and amount awarded is

on the higher side.

(L)

That no deduction is granted for lump sum

payment.

(M)

That the judgme