Dismissed¶25

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller Pune v. Sunita Jayprakash Chauhan

Bombay HC3 Nov 2025FA/2221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MSRTC bus-motorcycle fatal accident negligence; First Appeal under S. 173 Motor Vehicle Act; MACP No. 682 of 2016 award Rs. 12,86,000 with 7.5% interest; belated FIR effect on motor accident claim; chargesheet/police papers as proof of negligence; preponderance of probability standard; shift of onus to MSRTC; driver's testimony contradicted by spot panchanama; non-wearing of helmet plea; appeal dismissed at threshold; statutory deposit transferred.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; appeal dismissed at the threshold and the statutory deposit ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon. ¶25

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; appeal dismissed at the threshold and the statutory deposit ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the deceased motorcyclist, as contended by MSRTC, or by the negligence of the driver of the MSRTC bus. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

The driver's sworn testimony before the Tribunal was inconsistent with the spot panchanama, and a charge-sheet had admittedly been filed against him for negligent driving of the bus; the Tribunal therefore rightly considered the evidence on record and allowed the claim, and the appeal deserves dismissal at the threshold.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Even accepting that the FIR was lodged belatedly, the delay does not defeat the claim, because MSRTC did not dispute that the offending bus was involved in the accident and there is no dispute that the driver was charge-sheeted.

¶22

Key takeaways

The claimant's burden is on preponderance of probability, and police papers/chargesheet suffice to establish the accident and negligence; here the claimant succeeded in proving the case on probability, shifting the onus onto MSRTC to prove the contrary.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), First Appeal No. 2221 of 2025 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation against the award dated 9th January 2023 in MACP No. 682 of 2016, which allowed a death claim arising out of a collision between the deceased's motorcycle and an MSRTC bus, awarding Rs. 12,86,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Held: (i) the claimant's burden is dischargeable on a preponderance of probability, and police papers/chargesheet suffice to establish both the fact of the accident and negligence; since MSRTC did not dispute the bus's involvement and the driver stood charge-sheeted, the claim stood proved on probability and the onus shifted to MSRTC to prove the contrary; (ii) the belated FIR does not cast doubt on the claim where the involvement of the offending bus is undisputed; (iii) the driver's deposition, led by MSRTC, was inconsistent with the spot panchanama, and a charge-sheet for negligent driving had been filed against him; the Tribunal therefore rightly allowed the claim. Appeal dismissed at the threshold; statutory deposit transferred to the Tribunal with accrued interest.

¶1

3-FA-2221-2025.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2221 OF 2025

¶4

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, …Appellant Through Divisional Controller. Versus

¶5

Smt. Sunita Jayprakash Chauhan …Respondent

¶6

Mr. Nitiesh Bhutekar a/w Mr. Prathamesh Mandlik , for the Appellant.

¶7

Ms. Harshada Shrikhande, for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 12^th MARCH, 2026

¶9

PC:-

¶10

By consent of both the sides heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶11

This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 9^th January, 2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 682 of 2016, whereby the death claim came to be allowed directing MSRTC to pay compensation of Rs.12,86,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization of the amount.

¶12

Perusal of the pleadings before the Tribunal indicates that there is no dispute made by MSRTC with regard to the fact that

¶13

Page 1 of 3 12^th March, 2026

¶14

3-FA-2221-2025.DOC

¶15

the offending Bus is involved in the occurrence of the accident. Present Appeal is filed with the contention that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased who was riding motorcycle.

¶16

At the outset, learned counsel for Appellant - MSRTC submits that there is delay in filing of the First Information Report of the occurrence of the accident which creates doubt not only about the accident but the manner in which it occurred. It is his submission that the MSRTC led evidence of the driver who deposed about the causing of the accident inside the depot. It is his submission that for this reason, it could be safely held that the deceased was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. It is his further submission that since the deceased was not wearing helmet and he died because of head injury, he be held responsible for the said accident

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Claimant supported impugned judgment and award. She drew attention of the Court to the spot panchanama which according to her indicates that the evidence of driver is not reliable being contrary to said record. In any case, it is her contention that the claimant has proved the occurrence of the accident so also filing of chargeheet against the driver of the ST Bus which is sufficient to accept his negligence in the accident.

¶18

The burden upon the claimant to prove the claim is on preponderance of probability. It is settled position of law that on the basis of the police papers/chargesheet, the fact about accident

Page 2 of 3

12^th March, 2026

3-FA-2221-2025.DOC

so also negligence can be established by the claimant. Here in this case, even if it is accepted that the First Information Report came to be lodged belatedly, MSRTC has not deputed the fact that the offending bus is involved in the occurrence of the accident. Further there is no dispute that the driver of the offending bus is chargesheeted. Thus the claimant is succeeded in proving this case on probability. The onus therefore shifted on MSRTC to prove contrary.

¶23

Though the driver was examined by MSRTC before the Tribunal, his statement on oath is not consistent with the spot panchanama. Apart from the said fact, admittedly chargesheet has been filed against him for been negligent in driving of his Bus. Tribunal therefore, has rightly considered evidence on record and allowed the claim. This Court therefore finds no substance in the Appeal and hence the same deserves to be dismissed at threshold. In the result, following order :-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i) Appeal stands dismissed. (ii) Statutory deposit be transferred to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon.

¶26

VDMokal/-

¶27

Page 3 of 3 12^th March, 2026

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller Pune v. Sunita Jayprakash Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller Pune v. Sunita Jayprakash Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prakash Baburao Ozha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Baburao Ozha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Baburao Ozha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller vs Rajendra Rajaram Shewale and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai vs Purva Krushna Kinalekar and Ors.

Vilas Rajaram Dawande vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.