Bombay High Court
Kasturabai Rajaram Patil And Ors vs Sanjay Vishwanath Patil And Anr on 4 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9032
FA-3115-2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3115 OF 2013
1. Smt. Kasturabai Rajaram Patil
Age 60 Years, Occupation Household,
2. Smt. Vandana Haribhau Patil,
Age 39 Years, Occupation Household,
3. Ku. Jayashree Haribhau Patil,
Age 15 Years, Occupation Education,
4. Ku. Rupali Haribhau Patil,
Age 13 Years, Occupation Education,
5. Ku. Monika Haribhau Patil,
Age 10 Years, Occupation Education,
6. Chi. Mayur Haribhau Patil
Age 8 Years, Occupation Education
Applicant No. 2 is the mother and
natural guardian of the applicant
nos. 3 to 6.
All are residing at Purnad, Post Uchande,
Taluka Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Appellants
[Orig. Claimants]
versus
1. Shri Sanjay Vishwanath Patil
Age 34 Years, Occupation Agriculture,
R/o Tahsil Road, Muktanganghat,
Muktainagar, District Jalgaon.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Hall No. 'G' and 'H' Central Phule Market,
Jalgaon. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. R. F. Totala, Advocate for Respondent No.2
.....
FA-3115-2013
-2-
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 26.02.2026
Pronounced on : 04.03.2026
ORDER :
1. Original claimants have preferred instant appeal, primarily getting dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Member, M.A.C.T., Jalgaon, in claim petition bearing M.A.C.P. No. 225 of 2010 decided on 14.05.2012.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant First Appeal are that, on account of death of Rajaram Patil in a road accident dated 29.01.2010, his heirs set up claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [MV Act] to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- on alleged loss of income earned by deceased from milk business, under various heads. Owner of the tractor as well as its insurer were impleaded as party and they contested the claim petition by filing Exhibits 12 and 17 respectively. After appreciating the contentions, and taking into account the claim to be filed by invoking Section 163A of the MV Act, learned Tribunal granted Rs.3,67,00/- compensation and directed both opponents to jointly and severely pay the same with 7.5% interest per annum.
FA-3115-2013 -3-
3. Feeling aggrieved by the above, instant appeal has been preferred, and the fundamental ground put forth by learned counsel for the appellants is that compensation is awarded under Section 163A of MV Act. That, in fact it ought to have been granted by considering the claim to be under Section 166 of the MV Act. Learned counsel admitted that, petition was filed under Section 163A, but according to him, it was due to inadvertence, and more particularly there being plea of rashness and negligence on the part of driver, tribunal ought to have treated it to be under Section 166 of the MV Act for just and fair compensation under various heads.
4. In support of above contention that, even if petition is under Section 163A, when the pleadings suggest that, plea of rash and negligent driving has been raised, still tribunal is expected to treat it as petition under Section 166 of the MV Act and accordingly grant compensation, he seeks reliance on following judgments :
1. S. Shakul Hameed v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP © No. 7347 of 2024 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 06.01.2026].
2. Bijaya Bhuyan v. National Insurance Company Ltd and Another AIR OnLine 2023 SC 966.
FA-3115-2013 -4-
5. Learned counsel for insurance company strongly opposed by inviting attention of this Court to his pleadings reflected in the say at Exhibit 12. He also invited attention of this Court to the title of the claim petition as well as to the specific issue no.2 framed by the Tribunal, and thereby justified consideration of petition under Section 163A and not under 166 of the MV Act. According to him, the facts in the rulings relied are distinct and not applicable here.
6. In the light of above submissions, it is primarily to be seen whether Tribunal ought to have considered the claim petition under Section 163A or 166 of the MV Act.
7. In above backdrop, record is put to scrutiny. Apparently and admittedly as pointed out, the original claim petition is by invoking Section 163A of MV Act. As further pointed out, even in the light of pleadings raised by the parties, learned tribunal framed issue no.2 on the count of entitlement for compensation under Section 163A, of which discussion is made in para 11. Thus, not only claim petition, but even pleadings are in the direction of claim under Section 163A and therefore its consideration by the Tribunal under the same cannot be faulted at. Section 163A provides for consideration of FA-3115-2013 -5- compensation as per Second Schedule of the MV Act and the same has been put to use by the tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for appellants has placed on record above referred rulings. In the first ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court, i.e. in the case of S. Shakul Hameed (supra), on the strength of averments raised in the petition that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, mere opinion was drawn that though Section 163A was mentioned in the application, claim seems to be under Section 166 of MV Act.
9. Here, as stated above, the claim petition is primarily by invoking Section 163A and mere passing reference has been made in the memo that, ahead of tractor bearing no. MH 19/C 3167 with trolley, some buffaloes were coming and therefore tractor driver applied breaks as a result of which, motorcycle dashed over the tractor and suffer accident. There are allegations that the driver was not driving the vehicle by following rules and was driving by showing ignorance to the traffic on road. Moreover, from the judgment of tribunal, it is emerging that initially the predecessor of the court had framed issues under Section 166 of the MV Act, but said issues were recasted as the claim was under Section 163A, and thereafter FA-3115-2013 -6- discussion has been made in para 11 regarding application of Second Schedule of MV Act.
10. Therefore, here, primarily claim petition itself was under
Section 163A and was therefore duly considered under it. Thus, now it is not open for the claimants to get the claim petition treated under Section 166 in the appeal. For above reasons, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the following order :
ORDER The First Appeal is hereby dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] vre