1 wp 6366.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6366 OF 2011

1.

Santosh S/o Prabhawati Joshi,

Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Agril.,

R/o Wakadi, Tq. Paranda,

Dist. Osmanabad.

2.

Nitin Prabhawati Joshi,

Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Nil.,

R/o as above.

.. Petitioners

Versus

Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation, Through its Depot

Manager, M.S.R.T.C. Paranda,

Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

.. Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 6404 OF 2011

1.

Santosh S/o Prabhawati Joshi,

Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Agril.,

R/o Wakadi, Tq. Paranda,

Dist. Osmanabad.

2.

Nitin Prabhawati Joshi,

Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Nil.,

R/o as above.

.. Petitioners

2 wp 6366.12

Versus

Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation, Through its Depot

Manager, M.S.R.T.C. Paranda,

Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad.

.. Respondent

Shri A. S. More, Advocate for Petitioners in both matters.

Shri D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Respondent in both matters.

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

DATE : 05TH NOVEMBER, 2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

.

Both these petitions are based on similar set of facts. As

such are taken together.

2.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of

parties taken up for final hearing.

3.

The petitioners have filed petition for compensation U/Sec.

140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioners were

awarded amount U/Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Subsequently petitioners filed applications for addition of party.

The Tribunal allowed the said applications, but on condition that

the claimants shall deposit the amount of Rs. 25,000/- recovered

3 wp 6366.12

from the respondent as a condition precedent. Said orders are

assailed in the present writ petitions.

4.

Heard Shri More, the learned counsel for petitioners and

Shri Bagul, the learned counsel for the respondent.

5.

Shri More, the learned counsel submits that if the order

impugned is sustained the very significance of Sec. 140 of the

Motor Vehicles Act would loose its efficacy. Shri Bagul, the

learned counsel submits that at the time of deciding the claim

petition U/Sec. 140, the claimants did not add the owner and

driver of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company of the

offending vehicle as party, as they could easily claim the amount

of compensation from the present respondent. The Tribunal has

properly considered this aspect and has rightly passed the order.

6.

The provisions of Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act is meant

as succor for the claimants. The award U/Sec. 140 is already

passed. When the Tribunal found that the proposed parties are

necessary parties and has allowed the applications for addition of

parties, putting such onerous condition that the claimants should

deposit back the amount received U/Sec. 140 cannot be sustained.

4 wp 6366.12

7.

In case the present respondent succeeds at the time of

deciding the petition U/Sec. 166, at that time the said amount

awarded U/Sec. 140 can be adjusted.

8.

In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The

impugned orders to the extent of directing the petitioners to

deposit Rs. 25,000/- are quashed and set aside. It is made clear

that at the time of determination of petition U/Sec. 166 of the M.

V. Act, the said amount awarded U/Sec. 140 can be adjusted

depending upon the liability imposed to the extent of negligence

decided U/Sec. 166 of the M. V. Act.

Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however,

with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

bsb/Nov. 12