w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport Undertaking v/s Rajendra Visanji Thakkar & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L70109TG1995PLC019116

Company & Directors' Information:- A S TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60222TN1981PTC008886

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090UP2002PTC026917

Company & Directors' Information:- V K TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219GJ1997PTC032421

Company & Directors' Information:- G S TRANSPORT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1989PTC047780

Company & Directors' Information:- G B TRANSPORT (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1979PTC032170

Company & Directors' Information:- V A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202WB1996PTC081673

Company & Directors' Information:- H R T TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63031DL1999PTC102593

Company & Directors' Information:- G M TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60100MH1994PTC076183

Company & Directors' Information:- G L TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60200CH2010PTC032269

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND P TRANSPORT CO. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U60231OR2006PTC027280

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND P TRANSPORT CO. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U60231DL2006PTC149707

Company & Directors' Information:- V. N. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL2004PTC125632

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M TRANSPORT P LTD [Active] CIN = U60300MH1994PTC078458

Company & Directors' Information:- E C TRANSPORT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1987PLC043252

Company & Directors' Information:- P T TRANSPORT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1989PTC046423

Company & Directors' Information:- TRANSPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60230OR2007PTC009590

Company & Directors' Information:- C R TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090DL2002PTC115826

Company & Directors' Information:- A P M TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231KL1998PLC012555

Company & Directors' Information:- T. G. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02710CT2004PTC017051

Company & Directors' Information:- J. T. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63031WB2007PTC112457

Company & Directors' Information:- R S R TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210TZ1961PTC000392

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63010TN2008PTC070171

Company & Directors' Information:- S P TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059085

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1943PLC000306

Company & Directors' Information:- A B TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60221RJ2000PTC016701

Company & Directors' Information:- G. G. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60210AS2008PTC008576

Company & Directors' Information:- A P K TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60221TN2005PTC058057

Company & Directors' Information:- S P S TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1997PTC085564

Company & Directors' Information:- TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210TN1938PTC003051

Company & Directors' Information:- A G L TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090TN2005PTC056306

Company & Directors' Information:- W M TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210DL2001PTC113547

Company & Directors' Information:- B V M TRANSPORT CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00739KA1998PTC024103

Company & Directors' Information:- A O TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1960PTC011783

Company & Directors' Information:- M R TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1987PTC042118

Company & Directors' Information:- P P TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090DL2003PTC119167

Company & Directors' Information:- M M TRANSPORT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U60231PB1979PTC004031

Company & Directors' Information:- J P TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231PB1997PTC019652

Company & Directors' Information:- N P TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090OR2012PTC015128

Company & Directors' Information:- B S TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040TG2015PTC097190

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60200HP2010PTC031455

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63030JK2017PTC009897

Company & Directors' Information:- S N TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U60200DL2014PTC264029

Company & Directors' Information:- R J TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63010DL2013PTC248305

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17219TZ1948PTC000161

Company & Directors' Information:- THE TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1940PLC010301

    First Appeal No. 1237 of 2018

    Decided On, 19 May 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA

    For the Appellant: N.R. Bubna along with Pooja Singh, Sarvesh Waghchaure, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, Nikhil Mehta along with Rahul Mehta i/by M/s. KMC Legal Venture, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. By this First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant (original opponent) has impugned the judgment and award dated 5th July, 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Thane (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.A.C.T., Thane’ for short) in M.A.C.P. No. 284 of 2015 allowing part of the claim application filed by the respondents (original claimants) and directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.22,79,100/- to the respondents with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this First Appeal are as under:-

2. It was the case of the respondents that on 5th December, 2014 Master Dhruv Rajendra Thakkar who was son of the respondents and was 15 years of age was boarding T.M.T. bus bearing No. MH04-G-2885 in front of Dnyan Sarita High School at Bus Stop, Mulund (E), Mumbai, with proper care and caution. The conductor of the bus rang the bell without realizing the fact that the Master Dhruv Rajendra Thakkar was boarding the bus. The said bus started moving and the said Master Dhruv Rajendra Thakkar fell on the road and the rear wheel of the bus went over the legs of the Master Dhruv Rajendra Thakkar. The said Master Dhruv Rajendra Thakkar was shifted to Jupiter Hospital for specialized treatment. He was an indoor patient from 9th February, 2015 to 13th February, 2015. He however unfortunately died on 13th February, 2015 on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said deceased’ for short).

3. It was the case of the respondents that the said deceased was a brilliant student and was taking education in 10th standard in Nav Bharat Nutan Vidyalay. He also use to do part time job. The respondents filed a claim application before the M.A.C.T., Thane inter-alia praying for compensation against the appellant. The said claim was resisted by the appellant by filing written statement. The Tribunal framed four issues for determination. The respondent no.1 entered the witness box. The respondents also examined Mr. Mahesh Patil (C.W.2) to prove the admission of the said deceased at Jupiter Hospital and expenses incurred thereon. The respondents also examined Sushama Ojha (C.W.3) to prove the proof of the hospital bills. The appellant examined Ravindra Vekhande (D.W.1), who was on the wheel of the offending vehicle at the relevant time and Mr. Jaysingh Kamble (D.W.2), who was the conductor of the said bus at the relevant time. The witnesses examined by the respondents produced various documents including true copies of the FIR, statement of informant Kamlesh Jain who was an eye witness, spot panchanama, post-martem report and death certificate of the said deceased before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal delivered a judgment and award on 5th July, 2018 allowing the claims made by the respondents partly and directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.22,79,100/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application. The respondents did not challenge the said judgment dated 5th July, 2018. The appellant however has impugned the said judgment and award on various grounds.

5. Mr. N.R. Bubna, learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the various paragraphs from the pleadings filed by the parties, documents annexed to the First Appeal and compilation of documents filed by the respondents including copy of FIR and Panchanama.

6. Mr.Bubna learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the panchanama annexed to the compilation of the documents and would submit that the said deceased boy had climbed the bus even before the said bus could halt at the bus stop. He also relied upon the evidence of the respondent no.1 (original claimant no.1) and would submit that the said witness in his cross examination has admitted that the spot of the accident was 10 feet before the bus stop. He submits that it is thus clear that the said deceased tried to climb the bus even before the said offending vehicle could stop at the bus stop. It is submitted that when the said deceased was boarding the bus, he came under the wheels of the said offending vehicle. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the statement of Mr.Kamlesh K. Jain whose name was also shown in the FIR. It is submitted that the said deceased was solely negligent for the said accident and thus no compensation could be awarded by the Tribunal against the appellant.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent no.1 who entered the witness box on behalf of the claimants was not even aware whether the said deceased was trying to board the running bus before arrival of the said bus at the bus stop. He submits that the statement of Mr.Kamlesh Jain that the bus was at the bus stop when the accident took place is contrary to spot panchanama. He invited my attention to the spot panchanama annexed to the compilation of the documents filed by his client and would submit that even the spot panchanama would clearly indicate that the accident had taken place 10 feet before the bus stop.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the examination in chief and the cross examination of the driver of the offending vehicle examined by the appellant. He submits that the said driver had not seen the accident. It is submitted by the learned counsel that it was not the case of the respondent no.1 that the tyres of the offending vehicle went over the deceased. He submits that the offending vehicle was taking reverse for taking the said deceased outside the wheels of the said offending vehicle. No enquiry was conducted against the said conductor by the police. He invited my attention to the findings rendered by the Tribunal against the appellant and would submit that the Tribunal itself has nearly held that the accident had taken place before 10 feet of the bus stop. Learned counsel submits that the findings rendered by the Tribunal is based on conjectures and surmises and ignoring the spot panchanama as well as the evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellant. He submits that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred when the deceased had boarded the bus and the driver started the bus suddenly is totally perverse. He submits that the finding that no independent evidence was led by the appellant that the deceased was trying to chase the running bus is also perverse.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there was a curve on the road before turning the bus. This aspect is totally ignored by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and the award. He submits that the said deceased was solely responsible for the said accident and thus no compensation could be awarded against the appellant by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Pariyal and others (2007) 5 SCC 428 and in particular paragraphs nos. 25 and 27 in support of his submission that the onus to prove the negligence was on the claimants which the claimants had failed according to the learned counsel.

10. Learned counsel invited my attention to the claim application filed by the respondents and would submit that the bus could not be in speed in view of there being a curve before the bus took a turn. The evidence led by the claimants did not demonstrate that there was any negligence on the part of the bus driver of the offending vehicle when the accident had occurred. The Tribunal has considered the material not on record and has not considered the material on record.

11. Insofar as the quantification of the amount is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on no evidence. The witness examined by the claimants did not prove the correctness of the contents of the bills produced by the respondents in support of the claim for quantification. The witness PW-2 admitted in his cross examination that he was not aware as to what treatment was given to the said deceased. He was also not aware as to for what treatment the said deceased was admitted in the said hospital. He submits that the respondents did not produce any bills alleged to have been issued by the Jupiter Hospital, Thane in support of the claim for compensation. The respondents had produced the bills only allegedly issued by the Raj Hospital of Dr.Mukhi in the sum of Rs.1,85,750/-. He lastly submits that the Tribunal atmost could have awarded only a reasonable compensation in favour of the respondents and not such exorbitant compensation awarded against the appellant.

12. Mr.Mehta learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand strongly placed reliance on the findings rendered by the Tribunal. He invited my attention to the claim application filed by the respondents before the Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal had already allowed the application filed by the respondents under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act directing the appellant to pay certain amounts. The appellant did not challenge the said order passed by the Tribunal under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act by filing any appeal before this court.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 invited my attention to the cross examination of the driver of the offending vehicle examined by the appellant and would submit that the said witness in his cross examination admitted that he did not have any documentary evidence in support of what was deposed by him in his examination in chief. He rang the bell without noticing the deceased. The bus driver of the offending vehicle admitted in his cross examination that he did not see the accident. He submits that in view of such deposition in the cross examination, his entire examination in chief has to be discarded.

14. Insofar the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of the bills produced by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and proved through the witnesses examined by the respondents is concerned, it is submitted that the respondents had produced all the bills issued by the two hospitals including Jupiter Hospital. He invited my attention to the compilation of such medical bills issued by the two hospitals which were on record before the Tribunal. He submits that the appellant did not put any suggestion to the witnesses examined by his clients in their cross examination that the bills produced by them were fabricated. There was no cross examination about the contents, validity and authenticity of those bills produced by the respondents.

15. It is submitted by the learned counsel that his clients had examined an employee from the Billing Department of the Jupiter Hospital to prove the contents and authenticity of those bills produced by the respondents. The said witness was not examined to prove the extent of disability of the said deceased but was examined only to prove the fact that the respondents had incurred such amount on hospitalization of said deceased and on medicines.

16. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Bimladevi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, in Civil Appeal No.2538 of 2009 delivered on 15th April, 2009 and in particular paragraphs 14 and 15 in support of the submission that the respondents were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Kajal vs. Jagdishchand and others in Civil Appeal No.735 of 2020 delivered on 5th February, 2020 and in particular paragraph nos. 20, 26, 28 and 29 in support of his submission that the Tribunal ought to have allowed various other compensation also in addition to the compensation allowed by the Tribunal.

17. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Tribunal also ought to have allowed the claim for compensation towards future prospect to the extent of 40% of the annual income derived by the Tribunal which would be in the sum of Rs.2,16,000/-. He submits that since the said deceased was minor, the respondents who are the parents of the said minor would be also entitled to additional compensation by way of fillial compensation in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- also towards loss of love and affection. In support of this submission learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others in Civil Appeal No.9581 of 2018.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 tendered calculation showing a sum of Rs.26,25,106/- and submits that according to his clients they are entitled to recover from the appellant not only Rs.22,79,106/- as awarded by the Tribunal but the amounts reflected in the statement tendered across the bar. He submits that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. Though the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any cross appeal or cross objection, this court has ample powers to enhance the claims which were not awarded by the Tribunal in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments and also by this court in case of Kunti Pandey.

19. Mr.Bubna, learned counsel for the appellant in rejoinder would submit that the witnesses examined by the appellant had not admitted the suggestions put by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in their cross examination but had denied those suggestions. The case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 themselves was that the accident had occurred much before the bus stop.

REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

20. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence led by the parties and the reasons recorded and the findings rendered by the Tribunal.

21. A perusal of the claim application filed by the respondent no.1 and 2 indicates that it was the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the said deceased was boarding the offending vehicle in front of Dnyansarita High School, T.M.T.Bus Stop, Dr.R.P.Road, Mulund East, Mumbai 400 080 with proper care. The said offending vehicle however started suddenly without any signal or without looking front and back and in a fast speed and in negligent manner due to which the said deceased failed down on the road from the said offending vehicle and sustained serious injuries. He was admitted to Raj Hospital, Mulund for medical treatment and thereafter was shifted to Jupiter Hospital, Thane for better treatment. He was in the said hospital for number of days for treatment.

22. The claim was resisted by the appellant by filing written statement. The Tribunal passed an order on 8th March, 2017 under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as ‘no fault liability compensation’ with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the said order till realization. Admittedly the appellant did not challenge the said order passed by the Tribunal by filing any appeal before this court. The Tribunal framed four issues for adjudication.

23. In the written statement filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, it was the case of the appellant that when the said offending vehicle came near the bus stop, the deceased came running and tried to catch the running bus but could not hold the bar of the bus and fell down. The rear wheel of the bus ran over him. The passengers in the bus started shouting and accordingly the bus driver stopped his vehicle and took the bus reverse. It was the case of the appellant that the bus driver was not responsible for the said unfortunate accident. Some civil work of the road was going on and there was big pit on the side of the road. It was also the case of the appellant that the speed of the said offending vehicle was very slow as the bus was to halt at the said bus stop. It was the case of the appellant that at about 10 feet distance from the said bus stop, the said deceased tried to catch the said running bus and in such attempt, he could not catch the bars of the bus and fell down on the road.

24. On behalf of the respondent no. 1 and 2, respondent no.1 who is father of the said deceased filed his affidavit of evidence. In his deposition he deposed that the said deceased was boarding the offending vehicle on 5th December, 2014 at about 13 hours in front of the Dnyansarita High School, T.M.T.Bus Stop, Dr.R.P.Road, Mulund East, Mumbai 400 080 with proper care. The driver of the offending vehicle was totally negligent. The said witness also tendered large number of documents before the Tribunal. The said witness was cross examined by the appellant’s advocate. In his cross examination, the said witness deposed that he had visited the spot of the accident on the same day. The spot of accident is situated at the distance of 10 feet before arriving the said bus stop. The said witness denied the suggestion that any repairing work was in progress on the date of the accident near the bus stop. He deposed that he was not aware whether the said deceased was trying to board running bus before arrival of the bus at bus stop. He denied the suggestion put by the appellant that the driver and the conductor of the bus were doing their job carefully.

25. The respondent nos.1 and 2 also examined Mr.Mahesh Ragho Patil who was manager of the Jupiter Hospital since 2007. In his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief he deposed that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had paid an amount of Rs.15,23,356/- as mentioned in the bills produced by him and confirmed that the said amount was received by the said hospital by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The said witness was cross examined by the appellant. In his cross examination he deposed that he was not concerned with the treatment given to the said deceased by the said hospital. He was not aware as to for what purpose the said deceased was admitted in the said hospital. He denied the suggestion put to him that the said Jupiter Hospital had issued bills of excess amount.

26. It is thus proved beyond reasonable doubt by the respondent no.1 who entered the witness box that the driver of the said offending vehicle was responsible for his negligence. The driver did not notice the said deceased when he was driving. The second witness examined by the respondent no. 1 and 2 proved that the said deceased was admitted in Jupiter Hospital for treatment arising out of the accident and had paid a sum of Rs.15,23,356/- to the Jupiter Hospital. The contents of the said bills relied upon by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 showing the payment made to the Jupiter Hospital were thus proved by the said witness.

27. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 also examined Mrs.Sushama Sunil Ojha who was attached to Raj Hospital since 19 years. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 had produced the bills of the said hospital for the treatment given to the said deceased by the said hospital in the sum of Rs.1,85,750/-. The said witness was cross examined by the appellant. The said witness identified those bills. The said witness however was not personally aware in respect of the injuries caused to the said deceased and the treatment given to him.

28. On behalf of the appellant, the driver of the offending vehicle Mr.Ravindra Ramchandra Vekhande filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. In his deposition he stated that the accident had taken place 10 feet prior to the bus stop. The offending vehicle was driven in a slow speed. It is deposed that the said deceased was responsible for the said accident being negligent. In his cross examination, the said bus conductor deposed that he had not seen the accident. He denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred due to his negligence. He admitted that the police had registered offence against him. No departmental enquiry was held against him.

29. The appellant also filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the bus conductor of the offending vehicle Mr.Jaisingh Ramchandra Kamble. In his deposition, he also made the same deposition what was made by the driver of the offending vehicle. In his cross examination, he admitted that the police had registered crime against him. He did not have any documentary evidence to prove the contents of the paragraphs 2 and 3 of his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. He admitted that he rang the bell without noticing the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to his negligence.

30. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award indicates that the Tribunal considered all the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. The Tribunal also considered the investigation papers and more particularly FIR, spot of accident panchanama. The Tribunal accordingly held that the deceased was boarding the bus and the driver of the bus suddenly started moving the bus. It is accordingly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent. The evidence of the DW- 2 Mr.Jaisingh Kamble was contrary to the FIR and spot panchanama. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the bus conductor and the bus driver were prosecuted on account of rashness and negligence on their part. It was not the case of the driver and the bus conductor of the offending vehicle that the police had filed false case against them. The appellant also did not lead any independent evidence in support of their defence that the said deceased was trying to catch the running bus.

31. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the spot panchanama clearly indicated that blood strain marks were noticed ahead of the bus stop at the distance of 15 feet. The appellant though examined two witnesses, did not explain this part of the spot panchanama and could not demonstrate before this court as to how the blood stain marks were noticed ahead of the bus stop at the distance of 15 feet. In my view, after considering the pleadings, oral evidence and the documentary evidence, the Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had proved that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It is also proved that the said offending vehicle was involved in the said accident.

32. Insofar as quantification of the claim is concerned, it is matter of record that the respondent nos.1 and 2 had examined respondent no.1 as well as two other witnesses. The PW-2 and PW-3 were examined to prove the content of the medical bills issued by the two hospitals who had given treatment to the said deceased. Both the witnesses were examined to prove the contents of the bills and the factum of proof that the said deceased was given treatment by the two hospitals arising out of the said accident. Though both these witnesses were not aware as to what treatment was given to them, that would not conclusively prove that the said respondent nos. 1 and 2 had not paid those bills to the two hospitals. Once the contents of the bills were proved, that clearly indicates that the bills were issued for the treatment given to the said deceased by the said two hospitals. Even in the cross examination of the two witnesses, the appellant did not challenge the authenticity of those bills produced by two witnesses showing the amount paid by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to those hospitals for the medical assistance provided to the said deceased. I do not find any infirmity in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 based on those medical bills produced and proved through those two witnesses i.e. PW-2 AND PW-3.

33. The Tribunal has also rightly awarded the compensation towards loss of dependency in the sum of Rs.5,40,000/-. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and another Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. During the course of the arguments, Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 tendered calculation of claim and would submit that in addition to the compensation of Rs.22,79,106/- awarded by the Tribunal, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 would be also entitled to recover Rs.2,16,000/- towards future prospects. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 invited my attention to the paragraph 27 of the finding rendered by the Tribunal and rightly submitted that the said deceased had passed 9th standard examination when the accident had occurred. He had completed the age of 15 years at the time of accident. He was taking education. That fact is not disputed. The learned counsel for the appellant also did not challenge this finding rendered by the Tribunal during the course of argument.

34. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. In my view, the said deceased being a student and was taking education, the Tribunal ought to have considered the compensation towards future prospect at the rate of 40% of the amount of loss of dependency. In my view the respondent nos. 1 and 2 thus would be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- towards future prospect from the appellant.

35. Insofar as claim for compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each are concerned, the respondent nos.1 and 2 had not prayed for enhancement of the said amount. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 also prayed that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 be also awarded additional compensation towards loss of love and affection in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. In support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra). The Supreme Court in the said judgment has allowed a claim for compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the parents towards loss of love and affection in the similar circumstances. I am thus inclined to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and to allow the claim for compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

36. The said deceased being a minor at the time of his death, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 would be also entitled to claim a separate compensation towards loss of fillial compensation from the appellant. Mr.Mehta has rightly relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) in support of this submission. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 thus would be entitled to such compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each from the appellant in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal against the appellant.

37. In my view, Mr.Mehta rightly placed reliance on the judgm

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ent of Supreme Court in case of Bimladevi and others (supra) in support of his submission that even though respondent no. 1 was not an eye witness to the accident, his evidence as well as the evidence of the other witnesses could not be discarded by the Tribunal. In case of claim arising under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. In my view, the Tribunal has awarded compensation after considering not only the oral and documentary evidence led by the respondent no.1 but has also considered various undisputed documents such as FIR and spot panchanama. There is thus no merit in the submission of Mr.Bubna, learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the respondent no.1 ought to have been discarded by the Tribunal. 38. In my view, there is no merit in any of the submissions made by Mr.Bubna, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.Mehta has rightly submitted that in addition to the claims awarded by the Tribunal, his clients would be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- towards future prospects, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.80,000/- towards loss of fillial compensation based on the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred to aforesaid. 39. I therefore pass the following order:- a. First Appeal No. 1237 of 2018 is dismissed. b. Respondents are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.26,25,100/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of claim application till payment or realization. The respondents would be entitled to recover the said amount out of the amount deposited by the appellant before the MACT, Thane in M.A.C.P. No. 184 of 2015 after deducting the amount already withdrawn by the respondent, if any. c. If there is any short fall in the amount deposited by the appellant, the appellant shall deposit the short fall within two weeks from the date of computation such short fall amount by the MACT, Thane. If there is any surplus amount left after paying the decreetal amount to the respondent payable under the judgment and award dated 5th July, 2018 modified by this judgment, such surplus amount shall be paid to the appellant. d. If any additional amount of Court fees is payable due to the increase of the compensation amount, the respondents are directed to pay the deficit in payment of Court fees within two weeks from the date of computation of such Court fees by the MACT, Thane. e. Operative part of the judgment and award dated 5th July, 2018 is modified and substituted by this judgment. f. Parties as well as MACT, Thane to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment. g. There shall be no order as to costs. 40. This judgment will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. Sheristedar of this Court is permitted to forward the appellant and the respondents copy of this order by e-mail. All concerned to act on digitally signed copy of this order.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-09-2020 The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus V.A. Chandrika & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-09-2020 G. Annamalai Versus The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennnai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others Versus Goverdhan Lal Soni & Another Supreme Court of India
02-09-2020 Diwan Chand Goyal Versus National Capital Region Transport Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
31-08-2020 Rajendra Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
24-08-2020 M/s. Govindhji Jewat & Co., Represented by its Partner Rajendra Kone & Others Versus M/s. Rukmani Mills Ltd., Represented by its Board of Directors, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-08-2020 P. Gopalakrishnan Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, Dindigul Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-08-2020 P.R. Jagannathan Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Transport Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2020 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. I.A.S. Transport Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-08-2020 Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking through its General Manager & Another Versus Sadashiv Dnyandeo Gaikwad & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-08-2020 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Versus Mehar Chand (Deceased) High Court of Himachal Pradesh
11-08-2020 Atalbiharikumar Rajendra Mandal Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
07-08-2020 P.T. Hameed Versus The Joint Regional Transport Officer, Ottapalam & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Regional Office, Dharmapuri Versus K. Mahendiran High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 M/s. South India Road Milk Transport, Rep. by its Proprietor N. Vaidhyananathan Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to the Government, Department of Animal Husbandry, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 Jalgaon Golden Transport Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-07-2020 Shree Choudhary Transport Company Versus Income Tax Officer Supreme Court of India
28-07-2020 M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation Versus Dheer Singh High Court of Delhi
23-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Authorized signatory, Pravin Prabhakar Prabhu Versus Kameshwari Rajendra Sabnis & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
23-07-2020 N. Premkumar (Minor) & Another Versus The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Kabilan Manoharan Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport Bhavan, New Delhi, & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Vikas & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Maharashtra State Transport Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-07-2020 Sarveshvigram Versus The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2020 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vellore Versus K. Murugesan High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 V. Vijayakumarasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Transport II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Through Shri R. Rajendra Prasad, Branch Manager, Raichur Versus M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, Raichur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
17-06-2020 Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Represented by its Chief Law Officer & Others Versus H.S. Pankaja & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-06-2020 V. Saravanan Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2020 Diamond Transport Corporation Versus Sea Wings Shipping Willingdon & Others High Court of Kerala
26-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar & Others Versus Raj Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-05-2020 Jafar Babulal Tamboli & Others Versus The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-05-2020 Randhir Rambrij Sharma Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar Chandrol Versus High Court of Madhya Pradesh
11-05-2020 Vinu Vincent Managing Partner, Mathai & Co., Tyres, Pala Versus The Additional Registering Authority (Joint Regional Transport Officer) Sub-Regional Transport Office, Pala & Others High Court of Kerala
21-04-2020 Babu Rajendra Versus Basalingappa & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
15-04-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Mohani Devi & Another Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Versus Jaysingh Damodar Patil National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-03-2020 Satish Kumar Khandelwal V/S Rajendra Jain & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
12-03-2020 Tirur Motor Transport Co-Operative Society Ltd., Represented by President, Tirur & Another Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General), Malappuram & Another High Court of Kerala
04-03-2020 The Director, Shriram Transport Finance Co., Chennai Versus Kulandhai Theres & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-03-2020 S. Venkateswari Versus The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 M/s. SICAL Multimodal & Rail Transport Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory T. Subramanian Versus Central Warehousing Corporation, Represented by its Regional Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 G.T.P. Transport Company, Swaranpuri, Salem & Another Versus National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Manager, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Partha Sadhan Bose, Suspended Director, M/s.E.C.Bose & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Sugesan Transport Private Limited National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
27-02-2020 K. Maharaja Versus The Regional Transport officer, The Regional Transport Office, Madurai South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-02-2020 The Regional Transport Authority, Represented by Its Secretary & Others Versus Haridas P. Ravindran & Others High Court of Kerala
26-02-2020 K. Babu Versus The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 Manaj Tollway Private Limited Versus Rajendra Rahane Superintending Engineer & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-1), Bye-Pass Salai, Madurai & Another Versus S. Gunasekaran & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-02-2020 Gangaram Rambhau Doiphode & Another Versus D. Kumar Naidu, Proprietor of M/s. Shree Krishna Transport & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-02-2020 Rajendra K. Bhutta Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Another Supreme Court of India
18-02-2020 S. Sundarapandian Versus The Licensing Authority/Regional Transport Officer, Sulur, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 K. Subramaniyan Versus The License Issuing Authority, Regional Transport Office, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 L. Jagadeesan Versus The Regional Transport Officer, The Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office, Villupuram & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 M. Ramaraj Versus The Licensing Authority/Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore (Central), Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 The North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation through its Divisional Controller, Kalaburagi Versus Anzamma & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
14-02-2020 Unistone Panels Pvt. Ltd. & Another V/S Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation., Stores & Purchase Department, Jhangir Boman Beharam Marg & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-02-2020 C.P. Shinod Versus M/s. Shriram Transport Co. Ltd Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder, Rajan & Another High Court of Kerala
13-02-2020 Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram, Rep. by Its Chairman & Managing Director Versus K.A. Akash Dev & Others High Court of Kerala
13-02-2020 Mahesh Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, New Delhi Versus Rajendra Sudamrao Shinde & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 K. Chandran & Others Versus The Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 Economics Transport Organisation Ltd. Versus Mohan Investments & Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 Nisar Ahmad Versus Rajendra Kumar Soni & Others High Court of Delhi
10-02-2020 A.M. Noushad & Another Versus The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
10-02-2020 Rajendra Versus Jugalkishor & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-02-2020 Regional Transport Officer Versus Arun Kumar Behera & Others High Court of Orissa
05-02-2020 Shahubudheen & Others Versus The State Transport Authority, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2020 M. Sakthivel Versus The Principal Secretary/Transport Commissioner, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 N. Jalandar Versus The Secretary, Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation Employees Co-operative Housing Board Society Limited, Dindigul & Others Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
31-01-2020 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Regional Office, Dharmapuri Versus Jayalakshmi & Others. High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation Chennai. Versus Amsa Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Chandra Ratan Bajaj V/S PIO/Dy. Chief General Manager (South), Delhi Transport Corporation (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Others Central Information Commission
29-01-2020 State of M.P. & Another Versus M.P. Transport Workers Federation Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 Sukumar & Another Versus Regional Transport Officer, Transport Department, Salem (West) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 K. Rajendran Versus Joint Commissioner of Road Transport & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 K. Kaliappan Versus Principal Secretary Transport Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Thiruvannamalai Region, Thiruvannamalai, Rep. by its General Manager Versus The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Vellore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division I, Kumbakonam Versus Tamil Ilakiya & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Krishna Daga & Another Versus West Bengal Surface Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-01-2020 Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Odisha & Another Versus Chanda Jaiswal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-01-2020 Gajendra Versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Amravati In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-01-2020 Padam Chand Kothari, Proprietor M/s. Paras Padam Kothari Versus Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Thro Shweta Sanjiv Bhatt Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
17-01-2020 Rajendra Saxena & Another Versus Sharda Ratnam & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-01-2020 Rajendra Mishra Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-01-2020 Rajendra Kumar Verma & Another Versus Dolly Rani Bag & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-01-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. Managing Director & Another Versus Ramesh Kumar Sharma Supreme Court of India
13-01-2020 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur Division, Nagpur through its Divisional Controller Versus Gajanan & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-01-2020 C. Kuppusamy Versus The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2020 Harendra Ramchandra Pathak Versus Rajendra Ratan Mhatre High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-01-2020 Rajendra Kumar Khera & Others Versus U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 Dr. N. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus Lingampally Srinivas & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-01-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others Versus Ashok Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-01-2020 The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division I) Limited, Kumbakonam Versus R. Vedharathinam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras