13.FA141.2015(1).odt

1/4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2015

The Assistant Material Manager, Central Railway Depot, Kalyan, Thane.

Vs.

Ramkrishna s/o Pundlik Bhonde and others

__________________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court'

s orders of directions

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar'

s Orders.

Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for appellant.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J

.

DATE : 9^th SEPTEMBER, 2021.

This appeal is under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act by the Railways questioning the

award delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Buldhana, on 19^th April, 2012.

2.

The respondent claimant Rekha wife of

deceased Deepak alleged that Deepak was riding

motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-28-N-230 while

returning back from Surat. The vehicle i.e. truck

bearing registration No.MH-40-6644, owned by the

present appellant, which was driven in rash and

negligent manner, dashed against the said motorcycle

resulting in death of Deepak.

3.

So as to establish, the case for grant of

compensation claimant Rekha examined herself. So as

13.FA141.2015(1).odt

2/4

to demolish the case of the claimant, the appellant has

examined accomplish of the driver namely Ramkrishna,

who was working as Senior Khalasi with the appellant.

4.

According to Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for

the appellant, the Tribunal committed an error in

discarding the evidence of an eye witness to the

accident in question. He would claim that the evidence

of the appellant’s witness in categorical terms speaks of

the negligent riding of motorcycle by deceased Deepak.

According to him, said witness was not subjected to

cross examine. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the

counsel would urge that the Tribunal made an

erroneous finding of saddling liability on the appellant.

5.

Further contentions of Mr. Lambat are, in the

accident in question, along with deceased Deepak one

more rider was there, who was for obvious reason not

examined, as deceased Deepak was at fault in riding the

motorcycle.

6.

With the assistance of Shri Lambat, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant. I have perused the

findings recorded by the Tribunal while awarding the

compensation, the pleadings in the claim petition, the

evidence of witnesses viz. Rekha, who was examined in

support of the claim petition and Balwant, who was

examined by the appellant.

13.FA141.2015(1).odt

3/4

7.

Claimant Rekha in her evidence at Exh.28

has specifically narrated about the accident and her

relationship. She has claimed that the vehicle, which

was owned by the appellant, was driven in rash and

negligent manner. So far as the evidence of claimant is

concerned, there is no cross examination, as such, the

evidence of the claimant went unchallenged.

8.

Though Mr. Lambat, has claimed that the

evidence of their witness Balwant, who was traveling in

the goods vehicle with the driver at the time of accident,

has specifically deposed about rash and negligent riding

by deceased Deepak in the fact remains that the said

witness was not subjected to the cross-examination.

The said witness has specifically narrated about the

happening of accident and stated that the motorcycle

was driven in a rash and negligent manner. During his

examination-in-chief he has stated that the motorcycle

slipped under the Truck.

9.

As such, in the aforesaid background, the

occurance of the accident is very much established.

10.

The fact remains that the claimant had

examined herself and stated about the rash and

negligent driving of the truck, whereas Balwant was not

the driver of the vehicle but was only accomplished. The

fact that Balwant was accomplished of the driver at the