BHAGIRATHIBAI SONU JADHAV Vs. RATINATH NAGESHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SONU Jadhav retired from the railways and his last salary drawn was Rs. 350/- per month. After retirement to supplement his income (probably from his meagre savings) Sonu Jadhav took to selling toys and titbits making two to four rupees a day. He was knocked down by a car in the early hours of 11th October 1969 in front of Mahim Church, Mahim for which the widow and the son of the deceased held G. Ratinath Nageshkar, the owner of Car No. BYH-2606, responsible. They filed an application bearing No. 903 of 1970 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay at Bombay which dismissed the claim on the ground that the applicants have not proved that BYH-2606 owned by Nageshkar was involved in the accident. Alternatively the Tribunal gave a finding that for the loss of consortium the widow is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2000/- but that the applicants have failed to prove that they were getting any peculiar benefit from the earnings of the deceased Sonu. Hence the appeal.

(2.) THE applicants had put Balkrishna, a resident of Mahim Zopadpatti who was standing in front of junction hotel, Mahim at the time of the accident, in the box as an eye witness. He found that Sonu came from the Church side while a car coming from Dadar at a fast speed hit Sonu and sped away. Balkrishna claims to have taken down the number of the car on a piece of paper and when the police wireless van came to the scene in a short while he handed over the chit to the officer. As a good Samaritan Balkrishna accompanied the injured in the wireless jeep to the hospital where his statement was recorded. S.I. Jagganath Sawant was the investigating officer who recorded the statement of Balkrishna, made the panchnama and after drawing a rough sketch he treated Balkrishna's statement as F.I.R.

(3.) MR . Kudroli, the learned Counsel for the appellants attacks the judgment of the lower Court on the ground that it is a perverse appreciation of evidence and that the widow and the son could not do anything more than put one eye witness Balkrishna in the box, the one who had seen the accident, taken down the number of the offending vehicle, had accompanied the deceased to the hospital and given a statement about the happening to the police. Having put the eye witness in the box, argues Counsel, the burden shifted on the opposite side to prove that the car in question named by Balkrishna was not anywhere near the scene of the accident at the relevant time.