Partly allowed

Chandrakant Narayan Sawant v. Irfan Ismail Darji and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2005CAF/1268/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court set aside a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order that awarded only 60% compensation to a claimant, holding it perverse due to lack of defense from the truck owner/driver. The appeal was partly allowed, directing payment of the full award plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay full compensation of Rs.2,22,760/- with 12% p.a. interest and costs; amount already paid adjusted.

Chandrakant Narayan Sawant Vs Irfan Ismail Darji and… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1268 OF 2005
 WITH
 FIRST APPEAL NO.335 OF 1999.

¶5

 Chandrakant Narayan Sawant : Appellant.
 versus

¶6

 Mr.Irfan Ismail Darji & Anr. : Respondents.

¶7

 Mr.Sachin Shetye for the appellant.

¶8

 None for the respondents.

¶9

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.

¶10

 DATED : 7th April 2005.

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

 1. So far as the civil application is
 concerned, it is for restoration of the appeal
 which was dismissed by me on 10.03.2005 for
 default. Sufficient cause is shown for the
 absence. Hence civil application is allowed.
 Appeal is restored to file and taken up for final

¶13

¶14

 hearing. Civil Application is disposed of.

¶15

 2. Heard advocate for the appellant/original
 applicant. Respondents are served. Nobody is
 present for the respondents. The appellant had
 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents
 Claims Tribunal Raigad at Alibag claiming
 compensation of Rs.Three lacs. That petition was
 partly allowed and the compensation was fixed at
 Rs.2,22,760/-. But the tribunal awarded 60% of
 that amount only to the claimant. Hence this
 appeal.

¶16

 3. The accident occurred on 20.5.1994 at

¶17

 about 8.45 p.m. The applicant/claimant was going
 on his bicycle. The road by which he was going
 on was north south road. He was going from South
 to North. A truck bearing No.MTT 6723 came from
 the opposite direction and an Ambassador was
 stationary on the road to the eastern side. The
 truck was in a high speed. It dashed against the
 bicycle and the driver of the truck ran away from
 the spot. The right leg of the
 applicant/claimant came under the rear wheel of
 the truck and he sustained injuries.

¶18

¶19

 4. The tribunal held the truck driver

¶20

 responsible. There is no cross appeal by the
 respondents. Therefore, those findings are
 required to be upheld or cannot be disturbed.

¶21

 5. The counsel for the appellant contended
 that there was no material on record to hold that
 the applicant/claimant was responsible to the
 extent of 40%. The applicant/claimant examined
 himself, whereas neither the truck owner nor the
 truck driver remained present and, the matter
 proceeded exparte against them. If this is so,
 then it was clear that either the truck owner or

¶22

 the truck driver had no defence or that they did
 not want to contest the matter. In that case
 there was no reason for the tribunal to hold the
 applicant/claimant guilty of contributory
 negligence to the extent of 40%. The finding and
 the conclusion of the tribunal are therefore
 perverse. They are required to be set aside.
 Hence the order:-

¶23

 :ORDER:

¶24

 Appeal is partly allowed.

¶25

¶26

 The order of the Motor Accident Claims
 Tribunal, Raigad at Alibag dated 2.5.1997
 is modified and the respondents shall pay
 full amount of Rs.2,22,760/- with
 interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a.
 and also the costs before the lower court

¶27

 as well as this Court.

¶28

 Amount already paid shall be adjusted

¶29

 towards the aforesaid award.

¶30

 Certified copy expedited.

¶31

 [D.G.DESHPANDE]

¶32

 07/04/2005 JUDGE.

Chandrakant Narayan Sawant v. Irfan Ismail Darji and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Narayan Sawant v. Irfan Ismail Darji and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Parbhani Pamji Dept and Anr. Vs Haribai Anandrao Gaikwad and Ors.

Dattatray Baburao Anerao and Anr. Vs Rajaram Babu Pawar and Anr.

Ramchandra Pandu Ganeshker Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Krishna Patil

Mohd.Yusuf Shaikh Dawood Dakhave D/H Shafia Mohd.Yusuf Dhakhave and Ors. Vs Mohd.Ali Mohd.Hussain Ramrajkar D/H Badrunnissa Mohd.Ali Ramrajkar D/H Mohd.Iqbal Mohd.Ali Ramrajka

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Krishna Patil