PUSHPALATA Vs. GANESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard submissions at the bar. After additional evidence was taken pursuant to Judgment and Order dt.22.7.2013 passed by this Court, learned Member of the Tribunal recorded additional evidence of the following witnesses :

(2.) They were also crossexamined on behalf of the respondent. Thus, record and proceedings of M.A.C.P. No.206 of 2000 is received and perused. I have read additional evidence recorded while hearing submissions at the bar. It appears that witness Ramesh Amrutaji Manwar deposed before the Motor Accident Tribunal, Akola that he was travelling from Aamgavhan to Umra on 3.12.1999 at about 10 a.m. and then, after his work at Umra was complete, he had started his return journey by Washim to Manora ST Bus bearing Registration No.MH128282.

(3.) Another witness Rameshwar Narayan Ingole also deposed that he had travelled by ST Bus bearing registration No.MH128282 and when it was nearing Chikhalagarh phata, the bus driver had applied immediate brakes; in the result, the bus had gone to the side of the road. When the passengers alighted from the bus, the bus driver was in a state of fear having seen a Luna lying at about five feet distance from the bus and one person lying in injured condition by the side of it. The bus driver had realized that he was dashed by the bus and died. But he requested the passengers not to disclose about the incident. Furthermore, the Conductor of the ST Bus took back the tickets from the passengers. Though crossexamined at length, nothing material could be elicited from this witness so as to disbelieve him. It may be the case that the passengers may not have complained to the police about the fact that the Conductor had taken back tickets from the passengers. But the witnesses are consistent with each other on this fact that the ST bus driver had applied sudden or immediate brakes. The ST bus had stopped at the side of the road and when the passengers alighted from the bus, it's driver was in a state of fear because a Luna was lying there along with the injured person riding the Luna just five feet behind the bus. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that although witnesses were consistent to each other and withstood the crossexamination, but earlier evidence in a criminal case also indicated that it was the bus driver alone who was responsible for rash and negligent driving of the bus (offending motor vehicle) which resulted into fatal accident of husband of the claimant (Haribhau Gawande, aged about 55 years). Though the driver was acquitted in a criminal case u/S. 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the finding of acquittal was reached at was because the prosecution could not prove the offences beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses who were examined before the Tribunal also made statements before police identically and consistent with their versions as deposed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the issue for consideration before the Tribunal was whether deceased Haribhau Gawande, aged about 55 years met with accidental death as a result of rash and negligent driving of the ST Bus bearing Registration No.MH128282 (offending motor vehicle).