LAWS(BOM)-2006-4-98

SHIVAJI WAMAN EODASE Vs. CHANDRAPATI ISHWARSINGH DAHIYA

Decided On April 20, 2006
SHIVAJI WAMAN EODASE Appellant
V/S
CHANDRAPATI ISHWARSINGH DAHIYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard yesterday. All the first appeals in this group arise out of the same accident. The impugned judgment in all these appeals except in First Appeal No. 432 of 1997 is a common judgment delivered in separate claim petitions. Therefore, the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) All the appeals except one arise out of claim petitions filed under section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1939'). One appeal arises out of a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. All the claim petitions arise out of an unfortunate accident which took place on 20. 7. 1984. Accident took place at Kesurdi phata, Pargaon, Taluka Khandala, District satara. A bus owned by the Maharashtra state Road Transport Corporation was proceeding from Panaji to Pune. The other vehicle involved in the accident was a dumper-truck (hereinafter referred to as 'the dumper') owned by the appellant in first Appeal Nos. 246 to 251 of 1987. The dumper was coming from the opposite side. There was a collision between the two vehicles. The impact of the accident was so devastating that the entire right side of the bus from the driver's cabin till the end was completely torn exposing the seats on the right hand side. There were 35 passengers in the ill-fated bus. 8 passengers died on the spot and one passenger succumbed to injuries later on. 11 passengers suffered injuries. The driver of the S. T. Corporation bus also suffered injuries.

(3.) Number of claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal. One of the claim petitions was dismissed insofar as some of the claimants were concerned on the ground of bar of limitation. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the accident occurred due to composite negligence on the part of both the drivers. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the dumper. The Tribunal also accepted the defence of the insurer (i. e. Oriental Fire and General Insurance co. Ltd. ) of the dumper that its liability to third party risk was limited. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the contention of the insurer that the liability was limited to rs. 50,000 and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the liability was restricted to Rs. 1,50,000 in each case.