Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Mumbai Through Its Secretary v. Mrs. Veena Shridhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.893 OF 2014 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary } } } } } } ....Appellant (Original Opponent No.2-Represented by Divisional Controller, Nashik) V/s.

1. Smt.Veena Shridhar

2. Chi.Navish Shridhar

3. Nitish Shridhar All R/o. C/o. Ratnakar, 91/D, Hudco Colony, Bhadrawati, District-Shivmoga (Karnataka) } } } } } } ....Respondents by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2023.12.16 14:58:34 +0530 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE ---- Mr.Yashodeep Deshmukh a/w Ms.Vaidehi Pradeep, Ms.Aditi Athawale, for the Appellant.

Ms.Shamiana Hussain i/by Mr.Pravartak Pathak, for the Respondent No.1.

---- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 14th DECEMBER 2023 JUDGMENT :- .

The issue involved in this Appeal is contributory negligence of the deceased.

2.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

Appellant that, accident caused due to sole negligence of deceased. But it was not considered by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that, Tribunal in Paragraph No.1 has observed that, the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased, but has wrongly fixed 75% contributory negligence on driver of the Appellant, which is erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal. 3.

The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that order passed by the Tribunal is proper.

4.

Though Respondents/Claimants are served, none present for the Respondents/Claimants. Appeal is of the year 2014. Hence, I am deciding it on merit.

5.

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

6.

It is Claimant's case that, the deceased was going on motorcycle with his wife, at that time driver of the offending bus came from back side and gave dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to which deceased fell down on the road divider N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

and sustained injuries and died.

7.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that motorcycle of deceased was on the right side of the bus and he was trying to take short turn, in that attempt accident occurred. There was sole negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. In my view, admittedly, the offence was registered against the driver of the Appellant. The documents produced on record shows that, driver of the offending bus had tried to overtake motorcycle of deceased. In that attempt, he gave dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. It appears that, the accident was caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the Appellant. But Tribunal has considered 25% contributory negligence of deceased. The Appeal is devoid on merit and I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. (ii) The Respondents-Claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the Appellant along with accrued interest thereon.

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

(iii) The statutory amount be transferred to the Tribunal. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rules.

(iv) Pending Civil and Interim Applications are disposed of.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4