logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 BHC 2738 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Kolhapur
Case No : First Appeal No. 94 of 2002
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE
Parties : Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay Versus Udhav Vaman Paranjpe
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Pinky Bhansali (Through V.C.), a/w. Ketan Patil, Advocates. For the Respondent: None.
Date of Judgment : 28-09-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-KOL 9523,
Judgment :-

Oral Judgement:

1. Heard Ms. Pinky Bansali, learned Advocate for the Appellant.

2. By this Appeal, the Appellant has assailed the Judgment and Award dated 14.06.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratnagiri (“Tribunal”), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 183 of 1997, whereby the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- to the Respondent for a 30% disability sustained by the Respondent (“impugned Award”).

3. The Appellant is the Opponent No. 3, whereas the Respondent is the Claimant in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 183 of 1997.

4. The facts relevant to this Appeal, as set out in the claim petition, are that on 14.12.1996, the Respondent was travelling on his Bullet motorcycle, registration No. MGP-740, from Ratnagiri towards Mavlange. When he reached Balge Stop at Mavlange at about 8:15 p.m., a State Transport (“ST”) bus, registration No. MH-12-Q-831, coming from the opposite direction, dashed into his motorcycle. As a result of the impact, the Respondent was thrown into a drainage channel/gutter on the left side of the road along with his motorcycle and became unconscious. The Respondent sustained fractures of the tibia and fibula. As the fractured bones had not fused despite being placed in plaster, the Respondent had to undergo an operation. The Respon-dent filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 183 of 1997, seeking compensa-tion of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

5. This appeal was admitted on 22.01.2002.

6. Ms. Pinky Bansali, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that the challenge to the impugned Award is twofold. First, the accident resulted from contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent, as established by the FIR which was registered against the Respondent and not against the driver of the ST bus. She submits that the Respondent had sufficient space to negotiate the ST bus; and Second, that the amount of compensation awarded to the Respondent is excessive.

7. None appears for the Respondents, though duly served.

8. The following points are for consideration in the present Appeal:

                   (i) Whether the Appellant proves that the accident is a result of contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent and Mahadev Tukaram Jabare (driver) of the S.T. bus?

                   (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive?

9. The record was perused with the assistance of Ms. Pinky Bansali, learned Advocate for the Appellant.

10. After assessing the material on record, particularly the Spot Panchnama (Exhibit-22) and the deposition of the Respondent, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of rashness and negligence on the part of Mahadev Tukaram Jabare, the driver of the ST bus owned by the Appellant.

11. To show contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent, the driver of the ST bus was required to lead evidence. Undeniably, neither the Appellant nor Mahadev Tukaram Jabare (driver), examined any witness on their behalf to lead evidence of rashness or negligence in driving on the part of the Respondent. Notably, Mahadev Tukaram Jabare, who was Opponent No.1 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.183 of 1997, is not even a party to this Appeal.

12. Though an FIR was lodged against the Respondent, as submitted by Ms. Pinky Bansali, learned Advocate for the Appellant and was subsequently registered as Summary Case No. 18 of 1997, the records of this appeal indicate that the Respondent was acquitted.

13. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident resulted from the negligence of the driver of the ST bus.

14. With reference to the quantum of compensation, the fact that the Respondent sustained an injury in the accident, the Respondent's partial permanent disability of 30% and the Respondent being a doctor earning Rs. 8,000/- per month are not in dispute. The Respondent has produced the Disability Certificate before the Tribunal at Exhibit-32.

15. Applying the multiplier of 10, the Tribunal determined compensation for 30% disability at Rs. 2,38,000/-. However, as the Respondent restricted his claim to Rs. 2,00,000/-, the Tribunal, by the impugned Award, granted only Rs. 2,00,000/-.

16. The Tribunal's conclusion to restrict the compensation amount, in view of the Claimant's lower claim, is not tenable. Further, the Tribunal has erroneously applied a multiplier of 10 instead of 11.

17. I was leaning to interfere with the said conclusions of the Tribunal in relation to the compensation. However, Ms. Pinky Bansali, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that the Respondent, a doctor by profession, having consciously chosen to make a specific claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-, has not raised any grievance against the impugned Award and again chose not to appear in this appeal despite being served (Office note dated 03.09.2026). She therefore requests that the compensation not be enhanced. Ms. Pinky Bansali, learned Advocate for the Appellant, is perhaps right in her submissions, as such, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I accept the request made by Ms. Pinky Bansali not to enhance the compensation, by maintaining the compensation awarded to the Respondent by the impugned Award.

18. In view of the above, both the points framed are answered in the negative, consequently, this Appeal is without merit and is dismissed.

19. If any amount is deposited by the Appellant in this appeal in respect of the impugned Award, the Registry is directed to take immediate steps to return it, along with any accrued interest, to the Respondent (Dr. Udhav Vaman Paranjpe).

20. No orders as to costs.

21. Award be drawn accordingly.
 
  CDJLawJournal