Bombay High Court
Border Road Organisation (Bro) Thru Its ... vs Rekha Suresh Thakare & 2 Ors on 10 October, 2019
Author: M. G. Giratkar
Bench: M. G. Giratkar
FA 698.2008 judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2008
Border Road Organization (B.R.O)
Gadchiroli, through its Colonel
R.C.C Complex district Gadchiroli. ..... Appellant
(Petitioner)
.....Vs.....
1. Mrs. Rekha wd/o Suresh Thakare
aged about 43 years occupation Household
2. Master Akshay Suresh Thakare
aged about 12 years, occupation student
3. Ku. Ashwini Suresh Thakare
aged about 6 years, occupation student
Respondent no. 2 and 3 through their natural
Guardian respondent no. 1
All resident of Ward No. 5,
Armori, district Gadchiroli. ..... Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri U. M. Aurangabadkar, Assistant Solicitor General for the appellant.
None for the respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.
DATED : 10/10/2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] This is an appeal against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli (hereinafter referred to as the "Claim Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 67 of 2005. ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 03:42:38 :::
FA 698.2008 judgment.odt 2 2] The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under:
Deceased - Suresh Vithoba Thakare aged about 36 years was coming from Bramhapuri to Armori on his motor cycle bearing no. MH-33-B-8723. When he reached near Ekvira Medical Stores, the offending truck bearing no. 98-E-61115- X(113) driven by Gurusahibsingh (non-applicant no. 1 in Original Petition) gave dash to the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to dash given by the offending truck, the deceased - Suresh Thakare sustained severe injuries. He was taken to the General Hospital, Armori where he was declared brought dead by the Medical Officer. There is no dispute that the said offending truck was owned by the appellant.
3] The claim petition was filed by the dependents of the deceased - Suresh Thakare. The appellant appeared and filed written statement at Exh. 24 and denied the claim of the claimants. Issues were framed at Exh. 35. The claimant - Rekha examined herself. She has proved documents such as FIR, Spot Panchnama etc. She has stated in her evidence that her husband was working in the grocery shop of Ayaj Dardiwala and was getting Rs.4,000/- per month. The appellant not entered into witness-box. After hearing both the parties, the Claim Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5,83,000/-. ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 03:42:38 :::
FA 698.2008 judgment.odt 3 4] The present appeal is against the quantum of compensation granted by the Claim Tribunal.
5] Heard Shri U. M. Aurangabadkar, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the appellant. He has submitted that income of the deceased was not proved. There is no documentary evidence in respect of income of the deceased. Evidence of shop owner - Ayaj Dardiwala was wrongly relied by the Claim Tribunal. Learned Assistant Solicitor General has submitted that at the most income of Rs.3,000/- per month can be taken into consideration. At last, prayed to reduce the amount of compensation.
6] None appears for the respondents. 7] Perused the impugned judgment. From the perusal of
judgment, it is clear that the appellant not cross-examined thoroughly the witnesses of the claimants. Witness - Ayaj Dardiwala has stated in his evidence that deceased was working in his shop and he was paying Rs.4,000/- per month to him. This particular evidence is not denied by the appellant. The amount of Rs.4,000/- per month taken into consideration by the Claim Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal. There is no dispute about the accident took place and cause of death of the deceased. There is no dispute about ownership of the offending vehicle. The amount of compensation calculated by the Claim Tribunal is ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 03:42:38 ::: FA 698.2008 judgment.odt 4 perfectly legal and correct. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. 8] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE SMGate ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 03:42:38 :::