Dismissed

Bhagwan Rambhau Dhumal and Anr. v. M.S.R.T.C. Thr Div. Controller, Latur and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2009FA/175/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the dismissal of a motor accident claim petition, the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench held that the finder of facts found no negligence or responsibility on the part of the S.T. driver in the fatal accident. The appeal was dismissed as there was no interference required in the lower court's findings.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. No costs.

Bhagwan Rambhau Dhumal and Anr. Vs M.S.R.T.C. Thr Div… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.175 OF 1994

¶4

1. Bhagwan s/o Rambhau Dhumal, Age: 47 years, Occ. Agriculture.

¶5

2. Mahananda w/o Bhagwan Dhumal, Age 42 years, Occ. Household,

¶6

Both residents of Maslu,
Taluka Latur, District Latur.

¶7

...APPELLANTS
ORIGINAL CLAIMANTS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, Latur.

¶10

2. Ramkishan s/o Mahadeorao Gaikwad, Age 33 years, occ. Driver B.No.1636, attached to S.T.Depot, Latur, District Latur.

¶11

3. Ashok s/o Nagorao Waghmode, Age major, r/o Aagalgaon, Taluka Barshi, Dist. Solapur.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS
(Original
 Respondents)

¶13

...

¶14

Mr. V.G.Sakolkar, Adv.,for the appellants.
Mr.R.D.Reddy, Adv., for Mr.P.K.Joshi, Adv.,
for respondent no.1.

¶15

Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, Adv., for respondent no.3.
Respondent nos. 1 and 2 served.

¶16

¶17

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
 DATE : 9th JULY, 2009

¶18

***

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

1.The dismissal of claim petition by order
dt.31st Dec.,1993, is tested in the first appeal.

¶21

2.On 13.10.1991, at around 7.15 a.m. On
Latur-Ausa Road, near Nandi Stop, deceased
Suresh, a Mechanic, was taking trial of a Motor
Cycle bearing No.MXU-8827. He was moving from
Ram Nagar, Latur, to Ausa Road, from east-west,
for trial of the motor cycle. The S.T. Bus was
proceeding from Latur-Ausa Road, for Hyderabad.

¶22

3.In the accident, deceased succumbed to
the injuries on the spot. FIR was lodged by the
driver of the Bus/original respondent no.2, at
the Police Station. The claim petition was
restricted to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by the
parents.

¶23

4.The Counsel for the appellants/claimants
drew a sketch, having support to him from the
recitals of Panchnama, to highlight as to what
could be the nature of the accident and manner of
movement of the two vehicles. He tried to
impress, the accident was not on account of sheer
loss of care or negligence by the deceased but it
was the undue haste exerted by the driver in

¶24

¶25

proceeding in excessive speed, embodying
negligence on his part, taking toll of precious
life of the deceased.

¶26

5.I have gone through the panchnama, the
inquest and the FIR. The cumulative effect of
these documents is illustrative that from any
angle the accident in question was not face to
face or collision but, it was an impact to the
rear right side tyre of the Bus by the deceased.
The position of the motor cycle, in a damaged
condition, the brakemarks, the blood stains and
the pool of blood at the spot also endorse that
the accident could not be at rolling over of the
front wheel to the head of the deceased. The so
called eye witness to the accident is rightly
disbelieved by the learned Judge as his version
is rebelling to the documents on record. The
post mortem examination on the deceased ( Exh.43)
indicates that there were no crush injuries to
the deceased as there was no rolling of first
tyre to him. Column 17 thereof indicates that

¶27

there was laceration and incised wound. This
could not be a result of over-running of wheels
of the Bus, which was carrying 50 passengers at
the material time. The evidence and the documents
rather illustrate the motor cyclist/ deceased had
committed an error in crossing the State Highway,
ignoring the statutory indications expected to be
adhered. The FIR ( Exh.39) in unmistakable

¶28

¶29

terms illustrates that the motor cyclist gave
dash to the Bus when the Bus was plying from
Latur to Ausa and it was only the thud which gave
indication to the Bus Driver that there was some
impact to the rear side and he stopped the Bus by
taking it little ahead.

¶30

6.The analysis of the evidence, cannot be
said to be on wild presumptions of the learned
Member of the Court or based on surmises,
divorced from the record. The findings are in
tune with the record and it is rather unfortunate
that the precious life of the deceased is lost
but for that the S.T.Driver cannot be put to any
responsibility. The findings of the learned
Judge, in the situation, does not require any
interference. Appeal dismissed. No costs.

¶31

( K.U.CHANDIWAL)

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

agp/fa175-94

Bhagwan Rambhau Dhumal and Anr. v. M.S.R.T.C. Thr Div. Controller, Latur and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Rambhau Dhumal and Anr. v. M.S.R.T.C. Thr Div. Controller, Latur and 2 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

Krishnabai W/O Rangnath Shinde and Others Vs Pandurang Rama Andhare.

Pralhad Ramu Bhoite. Vs the State of Mah.Thro.Collector.

State of Maha Vs Shivaji Bapurao Hangarge

Kondabai Karbhari Garje and Another. Vs Bhima Shama Garje and Others.

Himmatrao Wamanrao Ambhore. Vs Raghwansh Shrifa Habib Mahasan (L.Rs.)Alvi and Ors.

Shamrao Totarao Bedse Vs Divl.Controller, M.S.R.T.C.Dhule and Anr.