( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

USJ

FIRST APPEAL NO.575 OF 2009

FIRST APPEAL NO.575 OF 2009

FIRST APPEAL NO.575 OF 2009

The United India Insurance

Company Ltd. ..Appellants

V/s.

Smt.Sunita Machhindranath Abadare

and Ors. ..Respondents

......

Mr.Rahul Mehta iby KMC Legal Venture for the

appellants

None for the respondents

......

CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J.

CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J.

CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J.

DATED : 28th April, 2009

DATED : 28th April, 2009

DATED : 28th April, 2009

P.C.:

P.C.:

P.C.:

1. The respondent No.1 Sunita and respondent No.2

Saubai filed application for compensation under the

Motor Vehicle Act for recovery of damages from the

owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company i.e.

appellants in regard to the accident which had took

place on 1st May, 2002. Husband of the respondent

No.1 Machhindranath died in the course of the

accident. At the time of accident, he was driving a

car Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.MH/04/AA/6300.

2. The learned Member, M.A.C.T., Sangli by his

judgment and decree dated 21st October, 2008 granted

the application and provided for compensation more

particularly set out in the operative part of the

judgment and decree. Against which the appellants

( 2 )

Insurance Company has filed this appeal before this

Court. It was sought to be argued that Machhindranath

who was the driver of Tata Sumo was negligent in as

much as he left his track and came on to the other

track and in the process dashed against the truck and

that is how said Machhindranath expired. According to

learned advocate Mr.Mehta, Machindranath had

contributed to the accident and that learned member

has not considered that aspect of the matter. He had

also pointed out that police had prosecuted the said

Machhindranath and passed on the blame to said

Machhindranath. It is to be noted that the driver of

the truck coming from the other direction has not been

examined. In fact, he was the best witness who could

have thrown light as to in what circumstances there

was a collision between the truck driven by him and

Tata Sumo driven by Machhindranath. Said driver has

not been examined. In such a case, it would be

difficult to accept the submission of learned advocate

Mr.Mehta that Machhindranath was negligent merely

because he had changed his track and came on to the