IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1006 of 2022 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Appellant Office No.2, Motor 3^rd Party Claims HUB, Union Co.operative Insurance Building, 5^th Floor, Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001.

Also having office at United India Insurance Company Limited MROI TP HUB, 3^rd Floor, 42, Cambatta Building, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020.

Versus Atul Dattaray Wadhane, Age 25 years, residing at A/901, Jan Kalyan Nagar, SRA Building No.2, S. V. Road, Opposite S.V.P.School, Dahisar East, PIN 400068.

Mr. Sebastain Anthony Pathikulangara, Respondents adult, address at B-405, Sea View CHS, Plot No.06, Sector No.08, Kandivali West, Mumbai, PIN 400 067.

with FIRST APPEAL NO.1007 of 2022 Atul Dattaray Wadhane, Appellant/

Age 30 years, residing at A/901, Jan Kalyan Original Nagar, SRA Building No.2, S. V. Road, Applicant.

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA Opposite S.V.P.School, Dahisar East, SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM

KADAM Date: PIN 400068.

2025.07.18

19:07:58

+0530

Versus

1 Mr. Sabastain Anthony Pathikulangara, Respondent adult, address at B-405, Sea View CHS, No.1/ Original Plot No.06, Sector No.08, Kandivali West, Opposite Mumbai, PIN 400 067. Party No.1 (Owner of Mini School Bus No.MH-02-BQ-0041)

2 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Regional Manager having their office Respondent No.2, Motor 3^rd Party Claims HUB, Union No.2/Original Co.operative Insurance Building, 5^th Floor, Insurer Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001.

Policy No.0217813115P113420791.

Policy valid from 08.02.2016 to

07.02.2017(Insurer of Mini School Bus No. MH-

02-BQ-0041)

s. Varsha Chavan, Advocate for the Appellant in FA/1006/2022.

Ms. Rina Kundu, Advocate for the Appellant in FA/1007/2022 and for Respondent No.1 in FA/1006/2022. CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 1^st JULY, 2025.

Judgment :

1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, (for short “the Tribunal”). The claimant has also preferred appeal for enhancement. As both appeals are against the same judgment and order, I am deciding them by this common judgment.

2. It is contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the claimant as he gave dash to the offending bus, when the offending bus was taking right turn. The driver of the offending bus examined himself to prove the negligence of the claimant and he has stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. The sketch map at Exhibit-64 produced on record shows how the accident occurred, but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation towards medical expenses and attendant charges on higher side , hence, requested to allow the appeal.

3. It is contention of learned counsel for claimant that before the Tribunal the Insurance Company claimed that the offending bus was stationed on road, it was not moving and the claimant dashed it. Learned counsel further submitted that PW3 is the wife of the driver, she has not witnessed the accident Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending bus. Charge-sheet is filed against him. Due to accidental injuries, the claimant has become paraplegic. The Tribunal has awarded compensation on lower side. Hence, requested to allow the appeal filed by the claimant and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.

5. It is claimant’s case that on 4^th July 2016 at about 9.10 am. the claimant was riding his motorcycle and proceeding towards his office at Borivali, when he reached at Pramila Nagar Junction, Dahisar, one mini bus took a sharp turn towards the right side without noticing the oncoming vehicle, without giving any signal or indicator and dashed against the motor