Dismissed¶21

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.Divisional Controller, Raigad v. Vanita Nivrutti Tambe and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2026FA/1377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, First Appeal No.1377 of 2024 (R. M. Joshi, J., 25-02-2026): MSRTC appeal against M.A.C.P. No.137 of 2018 award of Rs.9,06,000 with 6% interest dismissed. Pillion rider cannot be negligent; claimant may sue one or both joint tortfeasors; non-joinder of motorcycle rider not fatal; rider's alleged sole negligence immaterial. Statutory deposits transferred to Tribunal. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The claim is not hit by the principle of necessary parties; it is the option of the claimant to file a claim against both or any one of the joint tortfeasors, so non-joinder of the motorcycle rider does not render the claim untenable. ¶18

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.Divisional Controller, Raigad vs Vanita Nivrutti Tambe and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

18 fa-1377-2024.doc

¶2

SRK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SUMIT Digitally signed bySUMIT RAMESH RAMESH KARNIKDate: 2026.03.06 KARNIK 10:54:48 +0530 FIRST APPEAL NO.1377 OF 2024

¶5

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation … Appellant/ Thr. Divisional Controller, Raigad Applicant Vs. Vanita Nivrutti Tambe and Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar a/w. Mr. Prathamesh Mandlik, Adv. for the Appellant Mr. Abhijit Desai i/by Mr. Vasant More, Adv. for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 25^th FEBRUARY 2026.

¶8

P. C. :-

¶9

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for the Respondent finally at the stage of admission.

¶10

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 20^th July, 2023 passed in M.A.C.P. No.137 of 2018 whereby claim filed by Claimant came to be allowed directing the Corporation to pay compensation of Rs.9,06,000/- with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realization of entire compensation amount.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ MSRTC submits that the claim petition was not tenable for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is his

¶12

further submission that the Tribunal has committed error in not

1/2

18 fa-1377-2024.doc

SRK

appreciating the evidence on record which really indicates that the rider of the motor cycle was solely negligent for the occurence of the accident.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Respondent supported impugned Judgment and order.

¶18

There is no dispute of the fact that on 12/11/2018 the accident has occurred involving S.T. bus bearing No. MH-20/BL-1579 and the motor cycle on which the deceased was pillion rider. Since the deceased was pillion rider, he could not be said to have been negligent in any manner whatsoever in occurrence thereof. Moreover, it is option of the claimant to file claim against both or any one of the joint tortfeasors. Thus, there is no substance in the contention that the claim filed by the claimant is hit by principle of the necessary parties.

¶19

As far as negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle is concerned, it becomes immaterial and hence this Court therefore finds no substance in the Appeal. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶20

: ORDER :

¶21

Appeal stands dismissed.

¶22

Statutory deposits be transferred to Tribunal for its disposal in

¶23

accordance with law.

¶24

2/2

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.Divisional Controller, Raigad v. Vanita Nivrutti Tambe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.Divisional Controller, Raigad v. Vanita Nivrutti Tambe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Pune vs Suwarna Ishawar Thakur and Ors.

Sunil Suryakant Zodge vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suraj Balu Mahanto vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Alok Jagdish Yadav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurnce Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Anandamma Bojappa Ladi and Ors.

Pooja Kiran Gharat vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.