Dismissed

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Mumbai through Its Secretary v. Mrs. Veena Shridhar

Bombay HC14 Dec 2023FA/893/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal arising from a motor accident compensation claim, the High Court examined the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding of 25% contributory negligence. The court held that the accident resulted from the sole negligence of the appellant's driver who attempted an overtake. Consequently, the appeal challenging this finding was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Respondents permitted to withdraw security deposit with interest; statutory amount transferred to Tribunal; pending applications disposed of.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

4-FA-893-2014-Judg.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.893 OF 2014

¶4

Maharashtra State Road Transport } Corporation Limited, Mumbai Thr. Its } Secretary } } (Original Opponent No.2-Represented by } Divisional Controller, Nashik) } ….Appellant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2023.12.16 14:58:34 +0530

¶7

Smt.Veena Shridhar } 2. Chi.Navish Shridhar } 3. Nitish Shridhar } All R/o. C/o. Ratnakar, 91/D, Hudco } Colony, Bhadrawati, District-Shivmoga } (Karnataka) }^{….Respondents}

¶8

Mr.Yashodeep Deshmukh a/w Ms.Vaidehi Pradeep, Ms.Aditi Athawale, for the Appellant.

¶9

Ms.Shamiana Hussain i/by Mr.Pravartak Pathak, for the Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶11

DATE : 14^th DECEMBER 2023

¶12

JUDGMENT :-

¶13

. The issue involved in this Appeal is contributory

¶14

negligence of the deceased.

¶15

It is contention of the learned counsel for the

¶16

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶17

4-FA-893-2014-Judg.doc

¶18

Appellant that, accident caused due to sole negligence of

¶19

deceased. But it was not considered by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that, Tribunal in Paragraph No.1 has observed that, the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased, but has wrongly fixed 75% contributory negligence on driver of the Appellant, which is erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶20

The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that order passed by the Tribunal is proper.

¶21

Though Respondents/Claimants are served, none present for the Respondents/Claimants. Appeal is of the year 2014. Hence, I am deciding it on merit.

¶22

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (‘The Tribunal’ for short), Nashik.

¶23

It is Claimant’s case that, the deceased was going on motorcycle with his wife, at that time driver of the offending bus came from back side and gave dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to which deceased fell down on the road divider

¶24

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶25

4-FA-893-2014-Judg.doc

¶26

and sustained injuries and died.

¶27

It is contention of the learned counsel for the

¶28

Appellant that motorcycle of deceased was on the right side of the bus and he was trying to take short turn, in that attempt accident

¶29

occurred. There was sole negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. In my view, admittedly, the offence was registered against the driver of the Appellant. The documents produced on record shows that, driver of the offending bus had tried to overtake motorcycle of deceased. In that attempt, he gave dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. It appears that, the accident was caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the Appellant. But Tribunal has considered 25% contributory negligence of deceased. The Appeal is devoid on merit and I pass following order.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. (ii) The Respondents-Claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the Appellant along with accrued interest thereon.

¶32

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶33

4-FA-893-2014-Judg.doc

¶34

(iii) The statutory amount be transferred to the

¶35

Tribunal. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rules.

¶36

(iv) Pending Civil and Interim Applications are disposed of.

¶37

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶38

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Mumbai through Its Secretary v. Mrs. Veena Shridhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Mumbai through Its Secretary v. Mrs. Veena Shridhar

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

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the Divisional Manager, Mumbai Vs Kavita Ningu Singh Thakur and Ors.

1.MRS. Sunita Azgarsen Chelliya and Anr. Vs 1. Mr. Jagat Kishore Balkrishna Kalantri and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Thr. Its Legal Hubtp-Hub Vs Smt. Nasreen Sajid Khan and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Divisional Office Vs Mr. Nagnath Rohidas Sannole and Anr.

Vijay Arvind Pore Vs Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and Othrs

Geetaben Jitendrakumar @ Jitu Vithalbhai Panchal and Ors. Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thane and Anr.