High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Dismisses MSRTC Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Negligence of ST Bus Driver Proved. Deceased Motorcyclist's Contributory Negligence Not Established; Compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 Upheld Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 15
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) against the judgment and award dated 17/8/2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No. 34/2001. The claimants, the mother and two sisters of the deceased Ashok Bhagwanji Nagpure, had sought compensation of Rs. 4,50,000 for his death in a motor accident. The accident occurred on 29/10/2000 at about 3:30 p.m. when the deceased, aged 24 years, was riding a motorcycle (Yamaha RX100 bearing No. MP222259) near village Jam. An ST bus bearing registration No. MH12UA9728, driven by respondent No. 4, came from the opposite direction at high speed and dashed against the motorcycle. The pillion rider died on the spot, and Ashok sustained injuries and was taken to Government Hospital, Sewagram, and later to Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, where he died on 1/11/2000. The claimants filed a claim petition, which was resisted by the appellant MSRTC, who contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased motorcyclist and that the bus was in slow speed. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000. In appeal, the High Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments. The court noted that the appellant failed to examine the bus driver or any other witness to prove contributory negligence. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the bus driver was negligent and the deceased was not contributorily negligent. The court also found the quantum of compensation to be just and proper, considering the deceased's age, income, and the multiplier applied. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Contributory Negligence - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the ST bus driver was negligent and the deceased motorcyclist was not contributorily negligent, as the bus driver failed to prove his version of the accident. (Paras 1-5)

B) Motor Accident Claims - Quantum of Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court found the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 to be just and proper, considering the deceased's age, income, and the multiplier applied. (Paras 5-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in holding the ST bus driver negligent and awarding compensation to the claimants.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. The judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 17/8/2004 in Claim Petition No. 34/2001 is confirmed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Negligence in motor accident
  • contributory negligence
  • burden of proof
  • quantum of compensation
  • Motor Vehicles Act
  • 1988
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 174

First Appeal No. 671 of 2004

2013-07-23

A. P. Bhangale, J.

Shri R.A. Jain along with Shri S.C. Mehadia for Appellant; None for Respondents

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through the Divisional Controller, Railway Station Road, Nagpur

1) Smt. Manjulabai Wd/o Bhagwanji Nagpure, 2) Sau. Lata w/o Sureshrao Kadu, 3) Ku. Sunita d/o Bhagwanji Nagpure, 4) Sayyad Yusuf s/o Sayyad Abbas

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition for compensation for death in motor accident.

Remedy Sought

Appellant MSRTC sought setting aside of the Tribunal's award of Rs. 2,50,000 to the claimants.

Filing Reason

Appellant disputed the finding of negligence of its bus driver and the quantum of compensation.

Previous Decisions

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No. 34/2001 awarded Rs. 2,50,000 to the claimants, holding the bus driver negligent.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the ST bus driver negligent and not the deceased motorcyclist? Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is just and proper?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased motorcyclist, and the bus was in slow speed. Claimants contended that the bus driver was negligent and caused the accident.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove contributory negligence of the deceased. The bus driver was negligent as per the evidence. The compensation awarded was just and proper.

Judgment Excerpts

The facts in brief are stated as under : Deceased Ashok Bhagwanji Nagpure, aged about 24 Years, who was employee in a Flower Shop... was proceeding by Motor Cycle... on 29/10/2000 at about 3.30 p.m. The claim was resisted by appellant, as according to him, the accident had happened because of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by the deceased Ashok Nagpure. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000.

Procedural History

Claim Petition No. 34/2001 was filed by the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, which awarded Rs. 2,50,000 on 17/8/2004. The appellant MSRTC filed First Appeal No. 671 of 2004 before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 23/7/2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 279, 337, 338, 304A, 427
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Dismisses MSRTC Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Negligence of ST Bus Driver Proved. Deceased Motorcyclist's Contributory Negligence Not Established; Compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 Upheld Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Damages Against Employer in EPF Act Case for Default in Contributions. Levy of Damages Under Section 14B is Consequential Upon Default Without Requirement of Mens Rea for Breach of Civil Obligations.