In a second appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court upheld the MAC Tribunal's award of Rs. 1,30,000 compensation for injuries sustained in a head-on collision between a luxury bus and a tractor, finding no grounds to interfere with the tribunal's finding of composite negligence by both drivers.
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.980 OF 1991
Bhagwan Rangu Jadhav, age major ]
occupation Agriculturists, R/o ]
Khanapur, Post Shendur Lane, Tal] ... Appellant
Wai, District Satara. ](Org.Opp.No.5)
versus
1. Shri Manihar Devanand Kotiyan]
Age 25, Occ.Nothing, Residing]
at Pais Compound, Matadakani ]
Cross Road, Baloor, Mangalore]
2. Jagannath Kalawa Acharya, ]
Age 30, Driver, Residing at ]
Santhakatta, Kalyanpur - ]
Chechermarpeth, Udupi ]
3. Bharat Tourists, through its ]
Proprietor, Babu K Salian, ]
age 40, Occ.Business, ]
Resident of Maskewala ]
Building, 1st floor, Room No.]
No.7, Ibrahim Rahamatulla ]
Road, Bhendi Bazar, Bombay-3 ]
4. Shri Vijaykumar Moonraj, ]
age 35, Occ. Business, ]
resident of 223, Nanak Nagar ]
Jammu. ]
5. United India Insurance Co.Ltd] ... Respondents
having its registered office ] (R.No.1 Orgi
at 24, Whites Road, ] Petn. Ors.Opp
Madras 600 014. ] Nos.1 to 4)
Mr.Amol Mhatre i/by Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar for the
appellant.
Mr.G.H.Keluskar i/by Mr.N.V.Walawalkar for
Respondent No.3.
Mr.Dilip Mahadik i/by Mr.S.R.Singh for Respondent
2
No.5.
CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.
DATED : 03rd September 2007.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant - original opponent No.5,
Respondent No.3 - original opponent No.2 and
Respondent No.5 - original opponent No.4.
2. The appellant, who was the owner of the
tractor with trolley in question, has challenged
the impugned award dated 12th November 1990
passed by the Member, M.A.C.T. Satara whereby
the appellant along with others have been
directed jointly and severally to deposit
Rs.1,30,000/- with 12% p.a. interest from the
date of filing of the petition (i.e.19.4.1996)
till realisation.
3. By the said Award, the tribunal dismissed
the claim Petition against Opponent No.2. By an
order dated 22.11.1994, the First Appeal also
stood dismissed against original opponent No.1
3
i.e. Respondent No.2 herein, who was the driver
of luxury bus.
. By an order dated 22.3.2006, the matter
also stood dismissed against original opponent
No.3 - i.e. Respondent No.4 herein, who was the
owner of luxury bus. Therefore, there is no
challenge of any kind made by the driver and the
owner of the luxury bus i.e. Respondent Nos.2
and 4.
5. Before the tribunal, there were in all
three claim petitions. Petition No.100 of 1986
was filed by the owner of the tractor Bhagwan
Jadhav for the damages caused to his tractor.
Petition No.101 of 1986 was filed by the parents
of Balu (helper) to claim compensation. Petition
No.67 of 1986 was filed by the injured victim
Manohar Kotiyan i.e. Respondent No.1 herein to
claim compensation. The present appeal pertains
to MACP No.67 of 1986 filed by the injured victim
Manohar Kotiyan wherein the present appellant was
the owner of the tractor.
6. The accident in question took place near
village Joshi-Vihir on Pune-Bangalore Highway at
4
about 1 a.m. midnight on 11.12.1985. That was a
head-on collusion between the luxury bus bearing
No.JKQ-8123, owned by Opponent No.3- Vijaykumar,
and tractor MX-8383 with trolley MTL 9041, owned
by Bhagwan Jadhav i.e. the appellant herein.
Manohar Kotiyan - the traveller of luxury bus,
received serious injuries in the said accident.
Hence he filed a claim petition on 19.4.1986 and
prayed for compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,50,000/- against all the opponents.
7. After considering the evidence led by the
parties, the tribunal has held that the accident
was due to composite negligence of driver of
luxury bus, i.e. opponent No.1, and driver of
tractor with trolley owned by Opponent No.5 - the
appellant herein. The claimant sustained
permanent injury and as incurred medical
expenses, the tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.1,30,000/- against all, excluding opponent
No.2 as referred above.
8. Except the appellant - the owner of the
tractor with trolley, no one has challenged the
award on any count. Therefore, in view of this
fact itself, the challenge at the instance of the
5
owner of tractor with trolley is on a very feeble
foundation.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company basically contended that in the
case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s.
Sunita Rathi and others, 1998 ACJ 121, as there
is no challenge raised even by the Insurance
Company; the owner of the other vehicle i.e.
luxury bus and/or; the other opponent as
referred to above, the grounds raised in the
first appeal have no force; there is no case
made out by the appellant to interfere with the
findings so arrived at by the tribunal.
10. The learned counsel for the Insurance
Company further contended, based on the judgement
of the Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Kumar
Dugar v/s. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others, (2006) 3
SCC 242, that in such a case of head-on collusion
implied contributory negligence and rashness on
the part of both the vehicles just cannot be over
looked. Therefore, the deduction of 50% damages
on the said inference of contributory negligence
is sustainable. In the present case, based upon
the said principle of contributory negligence, as
6
admittedly, there was head-on collusion, the
grant of award against the opponents including
the appellant, needs no interference. It is
within the frame work of law as well as the
record.
11. The submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the appellant based on the
testimonies of the witnesses that it was high
speed bus which caused basic accident, though the
tractor with trolley was moving in a moderate
speed. After perusal of the evidence, there is
material on record to show that the truck had no
head lights (Manohar Kotian-PW 1). He has
further stated that both the drivers were at
fault; due to their negligence the accident took
place. In para 13 of his cross examination, he
denied the suggestion that the tractor was not at
all in fast speed. So far as injuries suffered
by the claimant, there is no cross examination at
all on behalf of the opponents. Rest of the
testimony in cross examination remained
unshattered. Through this testimony, the
claimant substantiated his case of permanent
injuries, income and resulting losses. The
claimant examined P.W.2 Babu Saliyan to prove his
7
income.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant
strongly relied upon the evidence of Bhagwan
Jadhav - the appellant to show that the truck was
going in slow speed by left side of the road, but
suddenly one luxury bus came in fast speed and
gave the dash to the tractor. The claimant, in
his evidence particularly in para 3, has stated
that suddenly one tractor came from the opposite
side and gave the dash to their bus. But the
testimony of claimant, who actually sustained
injuries because of this accident, just cannot be
overlooked as he was a person who, apart from
sustaining injuries, had actually witnessed the
speed and the incident. The supportive testimony
of Manohar Kotiyan P.W.1, therefore, cannot be
overlooked.
13. The testimony of Sudam Naikwadi (PW 2),
in the facts and circumstances and in view of the
testimony of claimant, is insufficient to
interfere with the findings given by the
tribunal.
14. The reasonings as arrived at by the
8
tribunal are based on testimony of the witnesses
as well as material placed on record and,
therefore, cannot be said to be perverse. Though
the tribunal held that the luxury bus was in
speed, but considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the tribunal has
rightly come to the conclusion that in view of
the undisputed position that there was head-on
collusion and as there was no head lights on the
tractor, both the drivers were equally
responsible for causing the accident. The
reasonings given by the tribunal for granting the
compensation on the basis of composite negligence
are, therefore, correct.
15. There is no challenge raised or there is
no agitation so far as compensation on the part
of opponents are concerned. The material placed
on record is sufficient to grant compensation as
awarded by the tribunal in all respects including
special damages as well as general damages.
16. In the result, the judgment of the
tribunal needs no interference. Hence the appeal
fails. It is dismissed accordingly with no order
as to costs.
9
[ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the award of compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal based on composite negligence of both drivers in a head-on collision needs interference on second appeal.
Whether contributory negligence implies rashness and warrant a 50% deduction of damages following Bijoy Kumar Dugar.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi and othersReferred¶28
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Sunita Rathi and others, 1998 ACJ 121
Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta and othersRelied on¶30
Bijoy Kumar Dugar v/s. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others, (2006) 3 SCC 242 · Who else cites this
Bhagwan Rangu Jadhav
Shri Manihar Devanand Kotiyan
Jagannath Kalawa Acharya
Bharat Tourists
Vijaykumar Moonraj
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court