(1)

fa1802.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

915 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1802 OF 2011

Divisional Controller,

...APPELLANT

Maharashtra State Road Transport

[Ori.Respondent]

Corporation, Divisional Parbhani,

Dist. Parbhani

Through Divisional Controller

VERSUS

1]

Shridhar S/o. Kashiram Sangle, ...RESPONDENTS

Age-39 years, Occu- Agriculturist, [Ori.Ptnr]

R/o. Pardi, Tq. Aundha,

Dist. Hingoli,

2]

Rustum S/o. Kishanrao Sangle,

Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist and Business,

R/o. Pardi [Savali], Tq. Aundha,

Dist. Hngoli

3]

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through Its Branch Manager,

Dayawan Complex, Station Road,

Parbhani

Mr. Anand D. Wange, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent

No.1

Mr. S. V. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent No.3

Respondent No.2 is absent though served.

1 of 7

(2)

fa1802.11

CORAM:VINAY JOSHI, J.

RESERVED ON:13-01-2022

PRONOUNCED ON:17-01-2022

JUDGMENT:

.

This is an appeal arising out of the

judgment and award passed by the MACT, Hingoli, in

MACP No. 346 of 2007, whereby the tribunal has

granted total compensation of Rs.11,20,000/-

alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a. It was a

case of head on collusion in between two vehicles

namely State transport bus and jeep. The Tribunal

has saddled the liability on both the vehicles to

the extent of 50% each. Being aggrieved by the said

decision, the appellant i.e. owner of ST bus has

challenged the finding of the Tribunal on both

counts i.e. negligence and assessment of

compensation amount.

2.

The facts in brief, are as such that:

a]

on 20-09-2007 the respondent No.1

(Petitioner/claimant) was traveling as a passenger

in jeep bearing registration No. MH-22/7665. While

jeep was passing from the Kazidara Pati on Hingoli

to Parada road at that time the State transport bus

2 of 7

(3)

fa1802.11

bearing registration No. MH-40/9869 came in high

speed from the opposite direction and gave dash to

the jeep. In the said accident jeep driver died on

the spot whilst the petitioner sustained severe

bodily injuries. Initially he was shifted to Rural

Hospital then to the Hospital at Parbhani and

finally he took entire treatment at Seth Nandalal

Dhoot Hospital, Aurangabad. The petitioner was

indoor patient from 23-09-2007 to 11-10-2007. He

sustained multiple bodily injuries over his head,

neck and spine etc. Particularly, he sustained

injuries like CT cervical spine with fracture aut

pat C7 body, Fracture inf.anticulating facet of C6

vertebra on right side with ante sublacal of Co over

C7 vertebra. The petitioner has spent Rs. 1,50,000/-

on his entire medical treatment.

b]

It is the petitioner’s case that he was serving

as a Supervisor with M/s. Ambarwadikar & Co.

Engineers and Contractors, from which he was earning

Rs.8,000/- per month towards salary. In the said

accident, the petitioner sustained 50% permanent

disablement. However, due to spinal cords injury,

the petitioner was unable to work and thus, it was

100% loss of earning capacity. Since the accident

3 of 7

(4)

fa1802.11

took place as a result of rash and negligent driving

of the ST bus driver, the police filed charge-sheet

against him. Being the case of composite negligence

the petitioner claimed the compensation from both of

them.

c]

The appellant (Ori. Respondent No.1)-MSRTC

resisted the claim before the Tribunal by filing the

written statement. Likewise insurer of jeep also put

its resistance. Precisely, it was the defence of

MSRTC that the accident was result of sole rash and

negligent driving on the part of the jeep driver. It

is contended that the tribunal erred in assessing

the quantum of compensation. According to the

appellant though the petitioner sustained 50%

permanent disablement, the tribunal has wrongly

considered 100% disability while assessing the

compensation.

3.

Heard both sides and perused the entire

evidence. The petitioner himself has led evidence

on affidavit about the acciden