Dismissed

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Its Divisional Manager, v. Sunil Kondaji Gulve and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2024FA/128/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal filed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the sole negligence of the bus driver. The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's observation and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. Claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount with interest. The statutory amount is transferred to the Tribunal.

The Maharashtra State Road Transport… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2-FA-128-2021.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2021

¶6

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ] Appellant
Through its Divisional Manager, N. D. Patel Road,]
Shingada Talao, Nashik, Tal. And Dist. Nashik]
 Versus
1. Sunil Kondaji Gulve ]
 Age : 34 years, Occ : Agriculture]
2. Adinath Sunil Gulve]
 Age : 8 years, Occu : Education]
 Claimant No.1 is for himself and next friend of ]
 Claimant No.2 both R/o Kundewadi, Tal.Sinnar,]
 Dist. Nashik.] Respondents

¶7

Mr. Nitesh V. Bhutekar a/w. Mr. Aniket Nangare, Advocate for the
Appellant.

¶8

Mr. Pritesh K. Bohade, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
 DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2024.

¶10

JUDGMENT :

¶11

1. The issues involved in this appeal are there was contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle on which deceased was a pillion

¶12

rider, there was head on collusion and evidence of defence witness has not
been considered.

¶13

2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation

¶14

that there was head on collusion between the motorcycle and S.T.bus. The

¶15

1/4

¶16

2-FA-128-2021.doc

¶17

S.S.Kilaje

¶18

accident occurred due to sole negligence of rider of the motorcycle but this
fact is not considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted
that to prove its defence the appellants have examined driver of offending
bus. He has stated that accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of
motorcycle, but his evidence is not considered by the Tribunal, hence
requested to allow the appeal.

¶19

3.It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents /
claimants that while passing the Judgment and Order, the Tribunal has
considered all the aspects and on that basis Judgment and Order is passed,
which is legal and valid and no interference is required in it.

¶20

4.I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the Judgment and
Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nashik (for short
“the Tribunal”). It is claimants’ case that on 26.01.2014 at about 3.45
p.m., deceased Sunita was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No. MH-15-
B-5091 from Nashik to Kundewadi. At relevant time, when she reached at
Karhegaon Shivar, one jeep was stationed on road, hence motorcycle on
which she was riding was stopped. At the same time, one S.T. bus bearing
No. MH-14-BT-696 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to
motorcycle. Due to the said dash she suffered grievous injuries and
sustained to injuries. The offence was registered against the S.T. bus
driver. To prove its case the claimant No.1 has examined at Exhibit-11, he

¶21

2/4

¶22

2-FA-128-2021.doc

¶23

S.S.Kilaje

¶24

has stated that accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of S.T.
bus. In cross examination he admitted that there was head on collusion
between the motorcycle and bus. He denied the suggestion that he had
tried to overtake the jeep and crossed the center line, therefore accident
took place. To prove its defence the Corporation has examined bus driver
Vinod Thoke at Exhibit-19. He has stated that one two wheeler was
following the taxi jeep. The taxi jeep suddenly stopped and therefore two
wheeler dashed the taxi, he has further stated that due to dash, the
women on motorcycle fallen down on the road thereafter he does not
know what had happened. In my view, the claimant No.1 was the eye
witness to the accident as he was riding the motorcycle with deceased. He
has stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the
S.T. bus. It has come in the evidence of driver of S.T. bus that when he
saw deceased fell on the ground, he was not aware what had happened
thereafter. It shows that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the
driver of the S.T. bus. I do not find infirmity in the observation of the
Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merit.

¶25

5. In view of above, I pass following order :

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶28

(ii) The claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited

¶29

3/4

¶30

2-FA-128-2021.doc

¶31

S.S.Kilaje

¶32

amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶33

(iii) The statutory amount be transferred to the Tribunal.

¶34

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

¶35

6. The appeal is disposed of.

¶36

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶37

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISH Date:2024.01.20 KILAJE 10:27:14+0530

¶38

4/4

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Its Divisional Manager, v. Sunil Kondaji Gulve and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Its Divisional Manager, v. Sunil Kondaji Gulve and Anr.

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

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Sindhudurg Vs Smt.Pooja Devendra Bidaye and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Sindhudurg Vs Smt.Jagruti Jayawant Bidaye and Ors.

SBI General Insurance Co.Ltd., Thane Vs Smt.Shilpa Bharat Itadkar and Ors.

Mr. Angad Chandrakant Thombare Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Mrs. Sushama Shantaram Golambade Vs Mr. Bharat Jadhavji Vora (H.U.F.) and Anr.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Laxmi Vaijanath Bhandari and Ors.