Partly allowed

M.S.R.T.C. through Div.Controlar,Osmanabad. v. Purshottam Rangrao Patil.and Others.

Bombay HC3 May 2010FA/437/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Transport Corporation's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding of driver negligence holding it reasonable, but partly allowed the claimant's cross objection to enhance compensation by Rs. 29,600 on heads of lost income, amenities, and hardship, adjusting the total award to Rs. 1,01,400.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay additional Rs. 29,600 on heads of amenities, hardship, and lost earning, raising total compensation to Rs. 1,01,400 with interest; dismissing appellant's cross objection.

M.S.R.T.C. through Div.Controlar,Osmanabad. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 OF 1996

¶4

WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2712 OF 1996
(By appellant for stay)

¶6

WITH

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5277 OF 2004
(By Respondent No. 1- claimant for
direction to deposit entire amount)

¶8

Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
through its Divisional
Controller at Osmanabad.

¶9

Appellant/orig.
Respondent No.1

¶10

versus

¶11

1. Purshottam s/o Rangrao Patil Age 50 years, occup. service r/of 160 Samarthnagar, Aurangabad, since deceased, through legal heirs :-

¶12

1-A. Atul s/o Purushottam Patil age 42 years, occupation : business, r/o 160 Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad.

¶13

1-B. Vipul s/o Purushottam Patil age 39 years, occupation : business, r/of as above.

¶14

¶15

`2.`	`Shri Muzaferali Khan,`
	`age major, occup.S.T.driver` `Latur Depot, c/o Depot` `Manager, S.T.Dept., Latur.`
`3.`	`Shri Prakash s/o Kundanal` `Ladha, age major, occupation`
	`business, r/of Hingangaon,`
	`Taluka and Dist. Ahmednagar.`
`4.`	`United India Insurance Co.` `Ahmednagar throgh Divisional` `Manager, Ahmednagar.`
`5.`	`Shri Bhaguji s/o Eknath Agle,`
	`age major, occup. service r/o`
	`Limbewadi, Post-Jamkhed,`	`Respondents/`
	`Taluka Ambad, District Jalna,`	`Resp.No.1 orig.`
	`at present residing at`	`applicant. R.`
	`Banjara Colony, Aurangabad.`	`2 to 5 ori.resp`
		`Nos. 2 to 5.`
	`WITH CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.`	`12980 OF 1996`

¶16

IN
 FIRST APPEAL NO.437 OF 1996

¶17

1.Purshottam s/o Rangrao Patil
Age 50 years, occup. serviceCross-
r/of 160 Samarthnagar,Dist.Objectionist
Aurangabad, since deceased,
through legal heirs :-

¶18

¶19

1-A.Atul s/o Purushottam Patil
age 42 years, occupation :
business, r/o 160 Samarth
Nagar, Aurangabad.

¶20

1-B.Vipul s/o Purushottam Patil
age 39 years, occupation :
business, r/of 160, Samarth
Nagar, Aurangabad.

¶21

 versus

¶22

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

¶23

2.Shri Mazafarali Khan,
age major, occup.S.T.driver
Latur Depot, r/o c/o S.T.
Dept. Manager, Latur,
Dist. Latur.
3.Shri Prakash s/o Kundanal
Ladha, age major, occupation
business, r/of Hingangaon,
Taluka and Dist. Ahmednagar.
4.United India Insurance Co.
Ahmednagar throgh Divisional
Manager, Ahmednagar.

¶24

¶25

5. Shri Bhaguji s/o Eknath Agle, age major, occup. service r/o Limbewadi, Post-Jamkhed, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna, at present residing at Banjara Colony, Aurangabad. Respondents.

¶26

Shri A.B.Dhongde, Advocate for appellant and for
Respondent No.1 in Cross Objection. Shri P.C. Mayure
Advocate for respondent Nos. 1(A) and 1(B) in first
appeal and for cross objectionists in Cross Objection.
Shri S.V.Varad, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in first
appeal and in cross objection. Shri D.V.Soman Advocate
for Resp. No.4 in first appeal and in cross objection.
------------------------------------------------------

¶27

Coram : P.R.Borkar, J.
 Date : May 03, 2010

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

01.This first appeal is preferred by original
Respondent No.1 Maharashtra State Road Transport

¶30

Corporation being aggrieved by the judgment and award
passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jalna, in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.
20 of 1986 decided on 5.1.1994, whereby original

¶31

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (present appellant and
respondent No.2-driver respectively) are directed to

¶32

pay to present respondent No.1-original claimant an
amount of Rs.71800/= together with interest at the
rate of 12 per cent per annum on Rs.68.050/= from
26.12.1989 till realization/actual payment.

¶33

¶34

02.Original claimant-respondent No.1 herein has

¶35

filed Cross Objection in present first appeal, being
aggrieved by grant of inadequate compensation and
prayed for grant of full compensation of Rs.
1,30,000/=.

¶36

03.Briefly stated, present Respondent No.1
Purushsottam-original claimant filed M.A.C.P. No. 20
of 1986 before M.A.C.T., Jalna, alleging that on
1.4.1984 at about 12.15 p.m. he was travelling in S.T.
Bus No.8953 from Aurangabad to Latur. The bus was
being driven by present Respondent No.2 Muzafarali
Khan. When bus came near Jamkhed, Taluka Ambad,
Respondent No.2 Muzafarali took the bus on wrong side
in rash and negligent manner as a result of which it
dashed truck bearing No.MHB-7438 owned by Respondent
No.3, driven by Respondent No.5 and insured with
Respondent No.4. As a consequence of dash, bus fell on

¶37

its left side and resulted in left hand of Respondent
No.1-claimant being crushed. He was first taken to

¶38

Primary Health Center Pachod and then he was shifted

¶39

to Government Hospital, Aurangabad where he was
treated. Ultimately, on 29.4.1985 his hand was
required to be amputated. The claimant was working as

¶40

¶41

Head Master in Sharda Mandir Girls High School,

¶42

Aurangabad and was earning salary of Rs.2,310/= per
month. He prayed for grant of total compensation of
Rs.1,30,000/=. He claimed that there was permanent
disability which is of 57 per cent. Towards permanent
disability, he claimed Rs.20,000/=. He also claimed
that there was loss of earning as he was paper setter
and also paper examiner/moderator. He further stated
that he had also to incur expenses for travelling
between Aurangabad to Pune for medical treatment. He
claimed Rs.20,000/= towards pains and sufferings, Rs.
18,000/= towards deprivation of left arm. He also
claimed Rs.11500/= towards loss of earning, so also
Rs.20,000/= towards agricultural loss as he was also
agriculturist. In all, he claimed compensation of Rs.
1,30,000/=.

¶43

04.Present Appellant (respondent No.1 before
the Tribunal) has chosen to remain absent and,
therefore, claim petition was decided without any
written statement or evidence of appellant No.1. Even
Respondent No.2, who was bus driver, did not file any
say though he appeared through Advocate. It is mainly
Respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 who were contesting parties.
The Tribunal ultimately awarded Rs.71,800/= against

¶44

¶45

original Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (present appellant
and respondent No.2). It is this order which is
challenged in this first appeal.

¶46

05.Advocate Shri Dhongde, appearing for

¶47

appellant-Corporation submitted that there was
composite negligence of the truck driver and the bus
driver and yet only the bus driver and S.T.Corporation
are held responsible.

¶48

06.Original claimant Purushottam-Respondent No.
1 herein examined himself at Exhibit 79. He stated
that on the day of incident be boarded Aurangabad-
Latur bus. He was occupying seat No.21 which is on
left side of the bus. At about 12.15 p.m., bus was
near Jamkhed; it was in high speed. Initially, it was
on left side of the road. A truck was coming from
opposite direction. All of a sudden the bus driver had
driven the bus towards wrong side as a result of which
it collided with the truck. Left side of the bus was
damaged. Claimant deposed that he sustained bleeding
injury to his left arm which arm was ultimately
required to be amputated.

¶49

¶50

07.Evidence of the claimant is supported by Dr.
Baburao Shankarrao Somwanshi examined as CW-2 at
Exhibit 90 who was another injured from the same
incident. He was occupying seat on the back side of
the driver. The Tribunal, however, held that this
witness could not have seen road on front side of the
bus and only after collision between the bus and the
truck, he could become aware of the accident.

¶51

08.As a defence evidence, Respondent No.5 truck
driver was examined at Exhibit 94. He deposed that
the bus was coming from Aurangabad side and his truck
was on left side. Bus was in high speed; it came on
extreme wrong side and gave violent dash to left hand
side mudguard of the truck and left the road and went
into a field.

¶52

09.It is observed by the learned Member of the
Tribunal that the evidence of truck driver was as per
the pleadings. There is also certified copy of the
panchanama on record on the basis of which the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was the bus
driver who was rash and negligent in driving and thus
responsible for the accident. Considering the fact
that bus driver did not enter into witness box and

¶53

¶54

considering totality of the circumstances, the
conclusion drawn by the learned Member of the Tribunal
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving by the bus driver cannot be said to be
unreasonable, not based on evidence or improbable.

¶55

10.The second limb of argument of the appellant
is that compensation awarded is excessive. The
accident had taken place in 1984. Paragraph 14 of the
judgment shows that the claimant was 51 years of age
when the accident had taken place. He was Head Master
and also working as moderator and paper setter. He
deposed that he was on leave for about five months
after the accident. However, that was disbelieved and
compensation for loss of earning was awarded only for
three months. In my opinion, compensation ought to
have been awarded for two more months. Accordingly, I
award Rs.4600 as additional loss of salary. It may be
noted that injury was serious as it resulted in
amputation. Even after discharge from hospital, time
is required for healing of the injury. There were
pains and sufferings to the claimant.

¶56

11.Anotheritemonwhichadditional

¶57

compensation is claimed by way of Cross Objection by

¶58

¶59

present Respondent No.1-original claimant is future
loss due to inconvenience and hardship. The amputation
of left hand is a serious matter and it affects
comfort of life. It is a serious disability affecting
person for rest of his life. He is to depend entirely
on one hand for all his work and particularly in old
age this may become very serious handicap. The
Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,000/= towards permanent
disability which was stated to be 57 per cent. There
is no dispute regarding medical expenses. For pains
and sufferings Rs.10,000/= are awarded and only Rs.
5000/= were awarded for amenities of life and
shortened expectations of life. In my opinion,
claimant is required to be awarded more towards future

¶60

loss of amenities in life,, inconvenience and hardship
and other heads of compensation which are recognized
by the Supreme Court in the case of R.D.Hatangadi vs.
Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 and I
award Rs.25,000/= on that count. There is no scope
for reducing compensation which is already awarded and
which is very meagre in the light of present set of
circumstances. It may be noted that till now, only Rs.
28,750/= are paid to respondent No.1.

¶61

¶62

12.In the circumstances, appeal is dismissed.

¶63

Cross Objection is partly allowed. It is directed
that original Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (present
appellant and Respondent No.2) shall pay compensation
of Rs.1,01,400/= in all inclusive of whatever amount
is paid by appellant and Respondent No.2 to respondent
No.1-claimant, together with interest at 12 per cent
per annum on Rs.71,800/= and at 9 per cent per annum
on balance of Rs.29,600/= from the date of application
till actual payment/realisation.

¶64

13.Consequently, both civil applications (No.
2712 of 1996 and 5277 of 2004) do not survive and
hence, disposed of as such.

¶65

pnd/fa437.96(P.R.BORKAR, J.)

M.S.R.T.C. through Div.Controlar,Osmanabad. v. Purshottam Rangrao Patil.and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.R.T.C. through Div.Controlar,Osmanabad. v. Purshottam Rangrao Patil.and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khaja Abdul Latif Khaja Abdul Aziz. Vs Mohammad Ali Ahemad Ali and Another.

Bhagwan Dhondiba Katare Vs Bhariulal Hemraj Kotecha

Rustumrao Ramrao Kadam Vs Kantabai Shantramji Pawar

Malharrao Kerbarao Cheramapalle. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Deoram Rajaram Aglave. Vs Shantaram Hari Padale (L.Rs.) Vithabai.

Ramkrishna Pandurang Malwade and Anr. Vs Avinash Sureshrao Kumtekar