Suresh Vamanrao Pol and Ors. vs Jagdish Mrugendra Chadchankar and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Suresh Vamanrao Pol and Ors. vs Jagdish Mrugendra Chadchankar and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed: Claimants awarded Rs.15,96,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realisation; Respondent-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within six weeks of receipt of the order; Claimants permitted to withdraw the deposited amount with accrued interest; Claimants to pay deficit court fees on the enhanced amount, if any; Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the Tribunal; pending Civil and Interim Applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the fatal accident of 19.01.2016 was caused by the negligence of the bus driver, of the deceased motorcyclist, or by both (contributory negligence), and in what proportion. +1 more

Court's answer

The Tribunal's finding of sole negligence of the deceased cannot be accepted: no one witnessed the accident and there are contradictions between the account in the police papers and the evidence given by the driver of the offending bus before the Tribunal.

Ratio / Principle

From the injuries sustained by the deceased it does not appear that the bus ran over him; nor is it clear from the police papers whether the deceased dashed the bus or the bus dashed the deceased.

Key takeaways

The version that the deceased, at high and excessive speed, overtook the bus and dashed the roadside stone is implausible: had that happened he would have tossed in the air and would not have fallen in front of the bus, which did not happen.ratio¶36
Considering the contradiction in the statement of DW-1 before the police and the Tribunal, and the evidence on record, the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and the bus driver, with 50% negligence of the bus driver and 50% of the deceased.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

First Appeal under the Civil Appellate Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court (Shivkumar Dige, J.) by the claimants against the dismissal by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune, of their claim arising from a fatal bus–motorcycle accident of 19.01.2016. The Tribunal had found the deceased motorcyclist solely negligent on the basis of the police papers and the deposition of the bus driver (DW-1, examined by the insurer at Exhibit-40), who alleged the deceased was overtaking the bus from the wrong (left) side at high speed and dashed a roadside stone; the offence was registered against the motorcyclist on 21.01.2016. Reversing that finding in part, the Court held that no one witnessed the accident, that the police-paper account contradicted the driver's deposition (who admitted seeing the incident only in the bus's left mirror), that the injuries did not show the bus ran over the deceased, and that the high-speed-overtake version was improbable since the deceased fell in front of the bus without being tossed in the air. Holding the accident to be the result of contributory negligence – 50% of the bus driver and 50% of the deceased – the Court deducted half from the Tribunal-computed total of Rs.31,92,800/- and awarded the Claimants Rs.15,96,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realisation, directed the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Respondent No.2) to deposit within six weeks, permitted withdrawal of the deposited amount, ordered payment of deficit court fees on the enhanced amount if any, sent the Record and Proceedings back to the Tribunal, and disposed of pending applications.

59-FA-16-24-JUDGMENT.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO.16 OF 2024

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2025.01.18 13:27:44 +0530

Versus 1. Jagdish Mrugendra Chandchankar } Age-Major, Occ : Owner } R/at 748 West Mangalwar Peth, } Solapur-413 002 }

Regional Manager, } United India Insurance Company Ltd., } Bharati Vidyapeeth Bhavan, LBS Marg, } Navi Peth, Pune-411 030. } ...Respondents

Mr.Yogesh Pande, for the Appellants. Ms.Sneha S. Dwivedi, for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 6^th JANUARY 2025

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 8

59-FA-16-24-JUDGMENT.doc

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

. The Appeal is preferred against the dismissal of Claim Petition.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant that, accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the offending bus. The deceased was going on motorcycle. His motorcycle was dashed by the bus. Due to dash he lost control and accident occurred, but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that, the Tribunal has calculated the calculation for awarding the compensation but has dismissed the Claim Petition, which is erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company that, accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased, as deceased was overtaking the bus from wrong side i.e. left side of the bus. The motorcycle of the deceased was in high and excessive speed, while overtaking handle of the motorcycle touched to the bus and due to it the deceased lost control and gave dash to the road side stone and

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 8

59-FA-16-24-JUDGMENT.doc

died due to injuries. The police has registered offence against the deceased. The spot panchnamma and police papers shows negligence of the deceased. The Appellant has examined driver of the bus who has categorically stated that, accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased. The Tribunal has passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it.

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

To prove the negligence of the driver of bus the Claimant’s have relied on police papers. The RespondentInsurance Company has examined Abdul Rahim Abdul Gani Shaikh driver of the bus at Exhibit-40. He deposed that, on 19^th January 2016 he was driving the bus from Nanded Phata to Pune City. He was passing the bridge. The width of the bridge was enough for passing the vehicle. When he was in middle of the bridge one motorcyclists came from behind the bus and tried to overtake it from left side. The motorcyclists dashed against one big stone on the left side and fell in front of his bus. The accident

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 8

59-FA-16-24-JUDGMENT.doc

took place because of mistake of motorcyclists. The Police registered offence against the motorcyclists. In cross-examination he admitted that, the place of accident was of traffic, he saw the incident in the left mirror of the bus and he lodged report to the Police station.

While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has observed that, accident took place because of overtaking of bus by the deceased. The Tribunal observed that motorcycle was driven in rash and negligent manner by the deceased. The deceased himself is responsible for his death. Thus, Tribunal has held sole negligence of the deceased. I am unable to understand the observations of the Tribunal, as no one witnessed the accident. There are contradiction’s in the story mentioned in the police papers and evidence given by the driver of the offending bus before the Tribunal.

The offence was registered against the motorcyclists on 21^st January 2016 whereas the accident was occurred on 19^th January 2016 around 5.00 p.m. In police papers it is mentioned that, while overtaking the bus the handle of the motorcycle

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 8

59-FA-16-24-JUDGMENT.doc

touched the bus and then motorcycle hit to the stone lying on the road side. Whereas the driver of the bus deposed before the Tribunal that, the deceased came from behind the bus and tried to over take from left side. The motorcyclists dashed against one big stone lying on the left side of the road and fell in front of his bus. In cross-examination the driver has admitted that, he has witnessed the incident in left mirror of the bus.

Though DW-1 has deposed that, the deceased fell on the road in front of the front wheel of the bus, but from the injuries sustained by the deceased it does not appear that, the bus ran over the deceased. It is not clear from the police papers whether deceased dashed the bus or bus was dashed the deceased.

As the driver of bus has deposed that, he did not dash the motorcycle of the deceased and the deceased had dashed the stone lying on the road.

Admittedly, the death of deceased is accidental death. The report of the accident was given to the police by the driver of the bus. The spot panchnamma at Exhibit-22 shows that, there

was stone on 4 feet from the incident spot, so it does not show

N.S. Kamble page 5 of 8

59-FA-16-24-JUDGMENT.doc

whether motorcycle dashed to the said stone or not. As driver of the offending bus himself admits that, the deceased fell infornt of bus. In that case he would have applied the break or try to avoid to give dash to the deceased, but it has not been done.

Though police papers and as per the contention of the DW-1, it is stated that, the deceased was trying to overtake the bus. In my view if the deceased was overtaking the bus in that scenario he would not have fell infront of the bus, as alleged by the DW-1 or police papers. Had he been in high and excessive speed and dashed the road side stone he would have tossed in the air, but it has not happened.

Admittedly, the deceased is died due to accidental injuries considering the contradiction in the statement of DW1 before the police and Tribunal, and evidence produced on record I hold that, accident occurred due to contributory negligence of deceased and bus driver and I consider 50% negligence of the bus driver and 50% of the deceased. The Tribunal has already calculated total compensation of Rs.31,92,800/- if amount of 50% contributory negligence i.e. Rs.15,96,400/- is deducted from

N.S. Kamble page 6 of 8

59-FA-16-24-JUDGMENT.doc

it, it will come to Rs.15,96,400/-. The Claimant’s are entitled for

this compensation amount.

In view of above, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The Claimants are entitled for amount of Rs.15,96,400/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from date of filing of Claim Petition till realization of the amount.

(iii) The Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon, within six weeks after receipt of the order.

(iv) The Claimant’s are permitted to withdraw deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.

(v) The Claimants shall pay deficit Court Fees on enhanced amount, if any.

N.S. Kamble page 7 of 8

59-FA-16-24-JUDGMENT.doc

(vi) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.

(vii) All pending Civil and Interim Applications are disposed of.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

N.S. Kamble page 8 of 8