AND

AWARD

DTD:17-09-2009

PASSED

IN

MVC

NO.1470/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST

TRACK COURT-I AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, DISMISSING

THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF IMV ACT.

IN M.F.A.No.21770/2010

BETWEEN

SHRI SHIVAJI MOTIRAM PATIL,

S/O MOTIRAM PATIL

AGE 59 YEARS, OCC NIL,

R/O TILKWADI, BELGAUM.

SMT SUNANDA W/O SHIVAJI PATIL,

AGE 55 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,

R/O TILAKWADI, BELGAUM.

... APPELLANTS

(BU SHRI SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADV.)

AND

WAHATUR BHAVAN CENTRAL,

MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

SHRI PAIRASHARAM RAVALU PATIL

- 3 -

TQ CHANDGAD, DIST KOLHAPUR. … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

AND

AWARD

DTD:17-09-2009

PASSED

IN

MVC

NO.1471/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST

TRACK COURT-I AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, DISMISSING

THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF IMV ACT.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

These two appeals are filed challenging the dismissal of

the claim petitions.

M.F.A.No.21769/2010 is filed by the legal heirs of

the rider of the motorcycle – Ravalnath Patil.

M.F.A.No.21770/2010 is filed by the mother and

father of the pillion rider – Gajanan Pail.

4.

The allegation set out in the claim petition was that

the deceased were traveling on a motorcycle and when the

motorcycle came near Belgaum – Vengurla road near Narewadi

village, it had a collision with the MSRTC bus and as a result of

- 4 -

the collision, both the rider and the pillion rider were killed at

the spot.

5.

It was the case of the claimants that the accident

occurred entirely due to the negligent driving of the bus by its

driver.

6.

The Tribunal on assessment of the oral and

documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the

accident occurred only due to the negligence of the motorcycle

rider and the motorcycle was in fact found coming on the

wrong side of the road. The Tribunal has accordingly dismissed

the claim petitions.

7.

In respect of the claim petition of the rider i.e.,

Ravalnath Patil, a perusal of the sketch would indicate that the

motorcycle was virtually traveling on the wrong side of the road

when it collided with the bus. The fact that there was extensive

damage to the motorcycle coupled with the fact that there was

damage to the radiator of the bus indicates that this was a

head on collision. In the absence of any evidence to show that

the rider could not see the bus, the finding of the Tribunal

- 5 -

regarding the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle cannot

be ruled out. However, to cast the burden entirely on the rider

of the motorcycle atleast insofar as the pillion rider is

concerned, would be grossly inequitable.

8.

Admittedly, the pillion rider was not responsible for

the accident in any manner. The fact remains that the rider of

the bus sitting at an elevated position and being able to have a

clear vision of the road, he could have taken some steps to

avoid the collision. There is evidence of the conductor of the

bus which indicates that the bus was in motion and at that

point of time, at the request of the conductor, the bus had been

brought to a stop to facilitate an elderly passenger to alight

form the bus. This evidence indicates that it is quite possible

that the bus which was travelling swerved to the left and this

could have probably led the driver of the motorcycle to veer

ofcourse and collide with the bus. Having regard to the totality

of the circumstances, though the negligence can be attributed

mainly on the rider of the motorcycle, but taking into

consideration that the pillion rider was in no way responsible for

the accident and also taking into consideration that the bus was

- 6 -

coming to the left to stop to enable an elderly gentleman to

alight from the bus, the respondent-Corporation would be liable

to the extent of 25% of the compensation that the pillion rider

would be entitled to. It is made clear that the rider of the

motorcycle shall not be entitled to any compensation from the

MSRTC.

9.

As regards the monthly