CLKAAHXTAMTNIAMDNRAANSIHEKAR THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR DCLLKD+ Aoa Hi a0 g crX t0 Ai ena tM 0 N :ta a 0i2t lAoD a0 y nNR k 2: s a A 6 KH i , gS . AD0i nHgT 3h e hET . d a1 KCIr 1 Mb w Ao y 0uAR a9rdNt: 4 BIo7ef:n0c9h V A E N H D I C A L W ES A R A D C T P 1 A 9 S 8 S 8 E , D P R IN AY I M N V G C TO N O S .2 E 3 T 3 A 0 S /2 ID 01 E 4TH B E Y J S U R D . G M CI E V N I T L JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NIPPANI ON 20.12.2018 AND ETC.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 20.12.2018 passed in MVC no.2330/2014 by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani, For short, ‘Tribunal’, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri ASR Namazi, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal was by respondent - MSRTC in claim petition filed by respondent herein. It was submitted, as per claimant when he was riding motorcycle no.MH-09/BR-7265 at 2:00 p.m. on 18.03.2014 on NH-4, driver of bus no.MH-14/BT-3099 owned by MSRTC drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. It was stated that in accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries despite taking treatment at Government Hospital, Nippani and Vasundhara Nursing Home, Kolhapur, sustained permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition against MSRTC under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. On appearance, MSRTC opposed claim petition, filed objections opposing claim petition on all grounds including denying negligence of bus driver and alleging total negligence on part of claimant.

4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW1 and Dr.Mohan P. Kalekar as PW2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P15. Respondent did not lead any evidence.

5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver and claimant was entitled for compensation from MSRTC as follows:

6. Challenging same, appeal was filed. It was firstly submitted, Tribunal erred in its finding on negligence when accident was caused by motorcycle rider. Same was without proper consideration. It erred in not noticing that motorcycle rider did not have driving licence.

7. Even on quantum, impugned award calls for reduction. Tribunal failed to note that disability was assessed by a doctor who had not treated claimant and even assessment of disability was excessive. It was further submitted, compensation awarded under various heads was excessive and called for reduction. Even rate of interest awarded at 9% per annum was excessive and prayed for allowing appeal on above grounds.

8. Respondent served and unrepresented. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and certified copies of pleadings, deposition and exhibits furnished by counsel for appellant.

9. Since, this is an appeal by MSRTC challenging finding on negligence as well as on quantum, points that would arise for consideration are:

1) Whether finding of Tribunal fixing entire negligence on MSRTC Driver is justified?

2) Whether award of compensation calls for reduction as prayed?

10. Point no.1: At outset, it is seen there is no dispute about occurrence of accident involving MSRTC bus and motorcycle on which claimant was riding. While passing impugned judgment, Tribunal noted reliance of prosecution records by claimant to establish actionable negligence against bus driver. It noted Exs.P1 to P3, FIR, complaint and spot panchanama disclosed that accident had occurred due to fault o