Appeal by the Municipal Corporation against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award dismissed. The High Court concluded the Tribunal correctly appreciated evidence and awarded compensation despite appellants' objections regarding vehicle seizure.
Appeal dismissed; civil application dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1259 OF 2004
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai .. Appellants
Versus
Smt. Sushila Maruti Patole & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.A.J.Bhor for appellants
Mr.M.B.Kotak for respondents
CORAM : P.V.KAKADE,J.
DATE : 14th DECEMBER,2004
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. This is an appeal preferred by the
: 2 :
appellant-Municipal Corporation against the Judgment and
Order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai
allowing the application of the claimants for
compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act. The learned Member of the MACT Mumbai awarded the
compensation of Rs.1,90,000/= along with interest @ 9%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim till the
amount was realised.
4. On 31.12.1991 at about 5.30 p.m. the deceased was
proceeding on the bicycle from Vasantrao Naik Marg,
Chembur, Sion Road. When he reached in front of Rahul
Nagar No.2, offending vehicle No.MRL-8876 came in very
fast speed from behind and dashed to the deceased, who
was on the bicycle. As a result of which he fell down
and sustained serious injuries on his head and other
parts of the body. He was removed to the Hospital but
succumbed to his injuries on 2.1.1992. Hence the
application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act came to
be filed for compensation of Rs.5 lacs.
. The appellant Corporation filed their written
statement raising various objections admitting the fact
that the vehicle belonged to them but stated that it was
: 3 :
not involved in the accident, as alleged by the
claimants. They further submitted that it is not
correct that the vehicle in question came in very fast
speed from behind and dashed to the deceased bicycle in
front of Rahul Nagar No.2 and caused him fatal injuries.
According to the appellant-Corporation Driver D’Souza
was handed over the vehicle for his duty in the second
shift on 31.12.1991 and when he was proceeding via road
from Deonar Shivaji Nagar one traffic constable stopped
his vehicle at Sion Signal and requested him to take him
to the police station. However, the said constable
handed the said driver to the R.T.O. office with the
allegation that the said driver had committed an
accident and on such other grounds the application was
sought to be dismissed.
5. The learned Member of the MACT adjudicated the
dispute on merits and came to the conclusion that the
vehicle in question which was involved in the accident,
in fact was witnessed by a Police Constable, who stopped
the offending vehicle and arrested the driver and came
to the hospital and lodged FIR. It was further
concluded that the driver in question was driving the
vehicle in rash and negligent manner, as a result of
: 4 :
which the accident had occurred. On assessing the
evidence on record the learned Member of the MACT came
to the conclusion that the compensation of Rs.1,90,000/=
would be a proper compensation and passed award
accordingly. Hence this appeal.
6. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record
which is available in compilation, I am satisfied that
the learned Member of the MACT has appreciated the
evidence in proper and correct manner. It was submitted
on behalf of the Corporation that deceased was
travelling on bicycle but the said bicycle was not
seized, which aspect shows that the deceased was not
travelling on the bicycle and therefore the entire claim
is rendered false. However, on perusal of the entire
evidence including the testimony of eye witness Vijay
Jadhav, who is a Police Constable, I am satisfied that
mere non seizure of the bicycle would not render the
entire case has false, because as observed by the
learned Member of the MACT, possibility of removing
bicycle from the spot cannot be ruled out before the
police had visited the spot and therefore merely because
the bicycle was not found on the spot and it was not
: 5 :
seized by the Police, it cannot be said that the entire
case is false.
7. So far as quantum of compensation allowed is
concerned, the learned Member has properly calculated
the relevant heads under which the claimants were
entitled to the compensation whereby he has come to the
conclusion that Rs.1,90,000/= was proper compensation.
I do not intend to interfere with the relevant findings
of fact recorded by the learned Member.
8. In other words, the appeal is required to be
dismissed in limine as no interference is called for at
all in the said judgment. Hence the appeal stands
dismissed in limine.
9. Consequently the civil application also stands
dismissed with no order as to costs.
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai
Smt. Sushila Maruti Patole & Ors.
P.V.KAKADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court