Disposed

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

Bombay HC6 Apr 2005FA/415/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of 1,92,000 rupees for injuries/suffering caused by a bus driver's negligence. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding on negligence ratio but modified the rate of future interest from 12% to 9% per annum, as the Tribunal's order otherwise remains intact.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's order is affirmed, but the rate of future interest on compensation is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum.

The Manager Parbhani Pamji Dept and Anr. Vs Haribai… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.415 OF 1994.

¶5

 Manager Parbhani Pamji Dept., Goa

¶6

 & Anr. : Appellants.

¶7

 versus

¶8

 Haribai Anandrao Gaikwad & ors. : Respondents.

¶9

 Mr.G.S.Hegade with Mr.A.R.Bhole for the

¶10

 appellants.

¶11

 Mr.R.S.Ghadge for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶12

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.

¶13

 DATED : 6th April 2005.

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

 1. Heard Mr.Hegade for the appellants and
 Mr.Ghadge for the respondents/claimants. This
 appeal is filed against the order of the Motor
 Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara dated 16th
 December 1993 wherein the Opponent Nos. 1 to 3
 were jointly and severally made liable to pay
 Rs.1,92,000/- including no fault liability to the

¶16

¶17

 claimants with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

¶18

 2. Three persons were going by Java

¶19

 motor-cycle on 15th April 1987. The driver of
 the appellant’s bus Datta Walwaikar was going
 from Goa to Pune. He was driving the bus bearing
 No.GDX 151. The speed of his bus was 50 to 55

¶20

 k.m. per hour. He saw two bullock-carts coming

¶21

 from one after other from the other side i.e.
 from Pune side. Behind those bullock-carts was

¶22

 the motor-cycle with three persons. When he saw
 the motor cycle he reduced the speed, but the
 motor cycle dashed against the bullock cart and

¶23

 all the three riders were thrown away. According

¶24

 to him, the motor cycle skidded and came under
 his luxury bus. Therefore, it is the case of the
 appellants that the appellant was not at all at
 fault and, the finding of the tribunal that the
 appellant was negligent to the extent of 80% is
 contrary to the record. It is this finding
 coupled with the quantum fixed by the tribunal,
 that is being challenged in this appeal.

¶25

 3. So far as quantum is concerned, the age

¶26

 of the deceased was 30 years. The tribunal
 applied multiplier of 20 and, awarded

¶27

¶28

 Rs.1,92,000/- including no fault liability. His
 dependency was taken at Rs.1,000/- per month.
 Therefore, Mr.Hegade, appearing for the
 appellants, contended that firstly the appellants
 could not be held liable at all in the accident.
 Secondly, the multiplier of 20 was wrongly
 applied and, therefore, alternatively the amount
 of compensation is required to be reduced.
 Thirdly, he contended that awarding interest at
 the rate of 12% p.a. is not proper in the
 circumstances and prevailing interest rate.

¶29

 4. As against this, it was the case of the
 respondents/claimants before the tribunal that on
 15th April 1987 deceased Balkrishna Gaikwad with
 his cousin brother were going on his motor cycle
 from Raigaon to Panchwad. The time was 7.30 p.m.
 The deceased was driving the motor cycle. They
 were going by left side of the road in a moderate
 speed. Near village Udatare, the luxury buss of
 the appellants came from behind and gave a
 forcible dash to the motor cycle and the riders
 of the motor cycle were thrown away and sustained
 injuries. The bus carried the motor cycle of the
 deceased up to a distance of 60 to 70 feet.
 Deceased Balkrishna sustained two injuries to his

¶30

¶31

 head and other part of his body and died in the
 accident.

¶32

 5. The question is, therefore, whether the
 findings of the tribunal regarding negligence of
 the appellants and holding them liable to the
 extent of 80% are proper? Both the parties
 examined witnesses in support of their
 contentions. On behalf of the claimants one eye
 witness Satish Jadhav was examined as Witness
 No.2 for the applicant. He has stated that on
 the date of accident he was going to Khandala on
 scooter. When he reached village Udatare, a Java
 motor cycle over took him and went ahead. A
 luxury bus of the appellants over took him and,
 the luxury bus was over taking Java motor cycle
 when it gave dash from behind to the motor cycle.
 The speed of the luxury bus was about 80 k.m.
 per hour. Both the motor cyclists were lying
 injured. He reported the matter to the police
 station. There were two persons on the motor
 cycle. He was contradicted with his FIR wherein
 he has stated that there were three persons on
 the motor cycle. The tribunal came to the
 conclusion that there were three persons on the
 motor cycle, that has to be accepted as true.

¶33

¶34

 6. On behalf of the appellants, the driver
 of the bus was examined. He has stated that the
 bus had a governor and, therefore, he could be go
 beyond the speed of 60 k.m. per hour at the
 relevant time when the bus came near that village
 the speed of his vehicle was 50 to 55 k.m. per
 hour and then he has stated about coming of
 bullock carts from opposite direction and the
 motor cycle brushing against the bullock cart,
 skidding and coming under his bus. In the cross
 examination he replied that when the written
 statement or reply came to be filed he has no
 informed or instructed his advocate that two
 bullock carts were coming from Pune side. He
 also did not tell his advocate that the motor
 cycle dashed against the bullock cart and three
 persons were thrown away. It that is so, then
 the theory put forth by the witness viz. the
 driver of the bus, is admittedly an improvement.

¶35

 7. Apart from that a perusal of the
 panchanama of scene of offence and the inquest
 panchanama of body of deceased Balkrishna will
 show that the theory put forth in defence by the
 appellants is not at all sustainable. If two

¶36

¶37

 bullock carts were coming from opposite direction
 and the motor cycle was following them, then the
 motor cycle over took one of the bullock carts,
 but brushed against the wheel of the bullock cart
 and skidded on the road and, the bus at that
 juncture coming from opposite direction,
 therefore, if such an accident occurred then the
 persons going by motor cycle would fall on that
 side of the road by which the bus was coming and
 they would directly come under the wheel of the
 bus. Inquest panchanama of deceased Balkrishna
 shows that he had injuries on his forehead and
 both of his thighs were fractured. There is no
 injury report about the other persons sitting on
 the motor cycle. But looking to these injuries,
 the defence raised by the appellants was rightly
 disbelieved by the tribunal.

¶38

 8. So far as spot panchanama is concerned,
 it shows that the bus of the appellants was in
 speed, may by it was high way and the buses or
 vehicles were usually going in speed and Java
 motor cycle was also in speed, but it is the
 question of deciding two different versions. The
 version given by the respondents/claimants on the
 basis of oral evidence of the witness and the

¶39

¶40

 spot panchanama supports their theory that it was
 negligence of the driver of the appellants’ bus.

¶41

 9. The tribunal has fixed ratio of

¶42

 negligence between 80% that of the appellants and
 20% of the deceased. I do not find any mistake
 in those findings and, so far as this aspect is
 concerned, no interference is called for.

¶43

 10. Alternatively, Mr.Hegde, appearing for
 the appellants, contended that so far as quantum
 is concerned, the tribunal applied multiplier of
 20. The age of the deceased as per his
 certificate of date of birth was 30 years at that
 time. According to Mr.Hegade, multiplier of 14
 should have been applied at the most. There is
 substance in this submission. However, as
 rightly argued by the counsel for the
 respondents/claimants it is equally true that
 when the deceased was earning Rs.2800/- per month
 at the relevant time, he was serving in BOmbay

¶44

 and his family was at native place, the
 dependency was, however, taken by the tribunal at
 Rs.1000/-, that is totally inadequate and

¶45

 improper. It is true that the wife of the
 deceased could not file any money order copy to

¶46

¶47

 show as to how much her husband was sending per
 month. But the family at native place would
 require more share of earning of the husband and
 not to Rs.1,000/-. So in any case if the amount
 of Rs.1,000/- per month is improperly taken by
 the tribunal then that have to be enhanced.
 There is no cross appeal. But the fact remains
 that injustice has been caused to the claimants
 in this regard. Therefore, in the circumstances,
 compensation awarded at Rs.1,92,000/- that to
 including no fault liability calls for no
 interference.

¶48

 11. Thirdly, it was contended by Mr.Hegade
 that the future interest awarded by the tribunal
 at the rate of 12% p.a. is not proper. In other
 matters also looking to the present trend of
 awarding interest this Court has awarded interest
 at 9% p.a. Hence the following order :-

¶49

 :ORDER:

¶50

 The order of the tribunal is to remain as
 it is. However, amount of compensation
 will carry interest at 9% p.a. from the
 date of petition till recover in stead of

¶51

¶52

 12% p.a.

¶53

 No order as to costs.

¶54

 [D.G.DESHPANDE]

¶55

 06/04/2005 JUDGE.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager Parbhani Pamji Dept and Anr. v. Haribai Anandrao Gaikwad 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

Bank of India Vs Tanaji Ashru Lokare and Ors.

Vs

Gulabso Aminso Mujawar (Deceased) Vs R.R. Tukaram Santaram Patil

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

Ramchandra Pandu Ganeshker Vs the State of Maharashtra

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