DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKSRTC Vs. SUSHILA SHRIMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals are arising out of the Judgment and Award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.38/2008 by the learned President, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed on 10/2/2011, whereby the said claim petition came to be partly allowed. Here, the First Appeal No.1180 of 2011 is filed by the original respondent, whereas First Appeal No.2637 of 2013 is filed by the original claimants and, therefore, both the appeals are proposed to be decided by this common Judgment. (For the sake of convenience hereinafter the parties are referred to by their original nomenclature before the Tribunal.)

(2.) Original claimants contended that claimant No.1 is the widow of Shrimant @ Hanumant Acchyut Phad, claimant Nos.2 and 3 were the children of deceased and claimant No.1, and claimant Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of deceased Shrimant. Shrimant was aged 42. He was Engineer, Contractor, Professor and he was doing the business of deary farming, animal husbandry, jaggery preparation and other such activities as well as running coaching classes. His monthly income was Rs.2,02,500.00. The accident took place at about 2.25 p.m. on 7/10/2007 at Ghatnandur on Ambajogai to Ahmedpur State Highway. Deceased was driving motorcycle bearing No.MH 24-G-9783. One Manik Bapu Daund was his pillion rider. Deceased was proceeding from left side of the road with moderate speed. His vehicle was dashed by Karnataka State Transport Bus bearing No.KA 38-F-358. The respondent had deputed one Santoshkumar Kashinath Subhane, who was barely 26 years of age, inexperienced driver, who had completed 17 days in service to drive an interstate bus. He was rash and negligent. Due to high speed the bus gave dash to the motorcycle, as a result of which the deceased as well as pillion rider fell down. They sustained multiple injuries. The deceased was shifted to Swami Ramanand Tirth Rural Medical College Hospital, Ambajogai and thereafter shifted to Vivekanand Hospital, Latur. He was operated, however, he succumbed to the injuries on 12/10/2007. The claimants have given the details of the income, which according to them, the deceased was earning from various sources and put up the calculation and demanded compensation of Rs.3,68,36,246.00.

(3.) The respondent filed written statement at Exh.12 and denied all the allegations. The age, income of the deceased and the manner of accident as claimed in the petition has been denied. However, place, date and time of accident and also registration of the First Information Report has not been disputed. It has been contended that the claimants in collusion with police registered a false case against a driver of the respondent. It is not disputed that Santoshkumar was driving the said bus at the relevant time, but according to the respondent, he was driving the said vehicle with utmost care. According to the respondent, the deceased himself had lost the control over his vehicle as he was driving it recklessly and wanted to avoid a collusion with jeep coming from opposite direction. It is categorically denied that the bus had given dash to the vehicle driven by the deceased.