Allowed

Digambar Ramrao Deshpande v. the Divisional Controller, Msrtc, Parbhani

Bombay HC18 Jun 2012FA/389/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an appeal and civil application regarding a Motor Vehicles Act compensation claim. Additional oral evidence on salary was admitted, and the Tribunal was directed to freshly decide the quantum after considering the document. Other findings were sustained.

What did the court decide?

First Appeal allowed partially; Tribunal to decide quantum of compensation afresh after considering salary certificate; Civil Application disposed of.

Digambar Ramrao Deshpande Vs the Divisional Controller… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 F.A.No.389/12

¶2

UNREPORTED

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶4

BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO.389 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.804 OF 2012.

¶7

Digambar S/o Ramrao Deshpande,
Age 47 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Basmath Road, Parbhani,
Tq. and Dist.Parbhani.

¶8

... Appellant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Gangakhed Road,
Parbhani, Dist.Parbhani.

¶11

... Respondent.

¶12

Mr.P.C.Mayure, advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Anand D.Wange, advocate for the Respondent.

¶13

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶14

 Date : 18.06.2012.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

2 F.A.No.389/12

¶17

1.Heard.

¶18

2.The present appellant had filed claim
U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for
compensation on account of the disability
sustained by him in the accident. The claim was
partly allowed. Aggrieved by non-grant of the
compensation as prayed the claimant has filed the
present appeal.

¶19

3.With the consent of the learned counsel
for both the parties, the matter is taken up for
final hearing.

¶20

4.Mr.Wange, learned counsel for the
Respondent opposes the application for production
of the additional evidence on the ground that the
appellant with due diligence could have produced
the same before the Tribunal. No proper reasons
are given for non-production of the said
documents before the Tribunal. In view of that
Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. would not come to
the aid of the appellant.

¶21

3 F.A.No.389/12

¶22

5.The appellant submits that the

¶23

appellant was not aware of the procedure nor was
instructed by the learned counsel before the
Tribunal to file the same and as such the salary
slip could not be filed.

¶24

6.In view of the reasons stated and the
fact that the proceedings are the part of
beneficial legislation, the application for
production of additional evidence is allowed and
the said documents are allowed to be produced on
record.

¶25

7.The appellant may file the certified
copy of the salary slip before the Tribunal.

¶26

8.Mr.Mayure, learned counsel submits that
the Court has not considered the income in
absence of the salary slip and has awarded the
compensation considering the lumpsum amount.

¶27

Even the future prospectus has not been
considered, the multiplier has not been applied.
The learned counsel submits that to the extent of
quantum the matter be remitted back.

¶28

4 F.A.No.389/12

¶29

9.Mr.Wange, learned counsel for the

¶30

Respondent submits that the Tribunal has properly
considered all the aspects of the matter and has
rightly awarded compensation. The appellant is
not entitled for any further amount.

¶31

10.With the assistance of the learned
counsel, I have gone through the judgment. The
application of production of salary certificate
has been allowed. In view of that, it would be
in fitness of things to grant an opportunity to
the appellant to canvass his case about the
income and the loss.

¶32

11.In view of the above, the appeal is
allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal is set
aside to the extent of awarding compensation
amount. The Tribunal shall after considering the
salary certificate produced on record and after
giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce
evidence on the same, decide about the quantum
afresh. The finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 needs
no interference and the same is sustained.

¶33

5 F.A.No.389/12

¶34

12.The present appellant has withdrawn the

¶35

amount as awarded by the Trial Court. The said
amount be considered for adjustment if the
Tribunal on evidence recorded comes to the
conclusion to enhance the compensation amount.

¶36

13.The First Appeal is accordingly
disposed of.

¶37

14.The Civil Application is also disposed
of.

¶38

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶39

asp/office/Fa38912

Digambar Ramrao Deshpande v. the Divisional Controller, Msrtc, Parbhani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar Ramrao Deshpande v. the Divisional Controller, Msrtc, Parbhani

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

Nagnath Dadarao Patil Vs Dr.Purshottam Bhikulal Agrwal

Laxmanbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Anr. Vs K.P.Netesan Pumalay and Ors.

Vijaykumar Narhari Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Govind Bansilal Dhoot Vs the State.of Maha.

Santosh Vithal Shelke Vs Noushad Siddiqui @ Naoushad Ahmed Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui and Anr.

Bhanudas Tukaram Kolpe and Anr. Vs Satish Mahipati Kolpe U/G Ratnamala Mahipati Kolpe and Ors.