MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. SHIVKANYA ANGAD RAHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been preferred under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'M.V. Act') by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (in short, 'M.S.R.T.C.') against the Judgment and Award dtd. 19/12/2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.124/2014 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claim Petition') awarding the compensation of Rs.10,40,000.00 (Rs.Ten Lakh Forty Thousand) with interest @ 9% Per Annum against the Appellant and Respondent No.5 -Driver of the Bus, to be paid by them jointly and severally to the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 / Orig. Claimants.

(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present Appeal are as under:

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that, Deceased was driving the Motorcycle on which two more persons were sitting and due to the triple seat driving of the said Motorcycle, the accident took place and so, Deceased contributed in the accident. The Claimants did not examine the Panch Witness to the Spot Panchanama. There is no evidence that the Bus Driver was at fault. It was the Head-on-Collision between the Bus and the Motorcycle. The Appellant examined the Driver as the witness and his evidence shows that the Bus Driver was not at fault. Secondly, the Claimants did not implead the Insurance Company of the Motorcycle as a party Respondent to the Claim Petition. As per Rule 260 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Driver is to be added as the party to the Claim Petition and duty is cast on the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal did not issue notice as required under the said Rule. The evidence available on record show that it was the case of 50% contributory negligence by Deceased and hence, Appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Award. In support of the contention, he relied on the Judgment in New India Assurance Company Ltd., Aurangabad Vs. Suman Bhaskar Pawar and Others; 2010 [2] Mh.L.J 177.