Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Smt. Gaitri Purshottam Puri & Ors.

Heard learned Advocate Ms. Bhansali for M.S.R.T.C. and Ms. Gokhale, learned Advocate for the Respondents-Claimants.

The claimants are the legal representatives of Purshottam Puri who was the practicing Advocate. He along with one Rasik Keshav Talpade were sitting on backside of the car bearing No.MFH-1197. It was driven by one Naresh Rawat. One Narayan Wasan was sitting on a cleaner seat. All 4 were going to Uran for Lions Club programe. Apart from Advocacy profession by way of social service the deceased Purushottam was working in Lion Club. He was having income from profession so also from other sources.

The accident took place on 4^th September 1992 at about 8.00 p.m. It was on a road on Mumbai-Pune State Highway. It was in between the Village Borpade and Village Kopra. There was a road divider. Their car was proceeding towards the Uran from a lane which is assigned to them whereas at the same time one M.S.R.T.C. bus bearing MH-20/A-4724 was proceeding towards Mumbai. It was driven by one Masooq Laxman Bargude. It was coming from opposite direction. The bus driver by crossing the divider had given dashed to a car proceeding in lane assigned for going to Uran.

In that incident the Purshottam and said Talpade have died on the spot. That is why claim was filed by LRs of deceased-Purshottam. According to them it was not the fault of the car driver but it was the 100% fault of the bus driver. It is further submitted that even if there is a fault of the car driver, the deceased Purshottam cannot be blamed for the same and it is a case of composite negligence.

During evidence on behalf of the Claimants 4 witnesses were examined. They are as follows: (i) Vishal Puri, Son of the deceased (ii) Gayatri P. Puri, wife of the deceased. Both are not eye witnesses but they are on the point of income of the deceased. (iii) Harishchandra R. Gupte. He is Chartered Accountant of the deceased. (iv) Narayan Rawat who is driver of the car.

M.S.R.T.C. by filing written-statement have denied the allegation made in the claim petition. They have denied the negligence on the part of their driver. They have pleaded that when the driver was coming from Pune side, one motorcycle was moving ahead of the S.T. bus. The driver applied the brakes instantly and as a result S.T. driver was required to apply the brakes and by way of natural action the S.T. driver was required to take a turn and it overtook the road divider and that is how S.T. bus hit the car coming from opposite direction. When the S.T. driver gave evidence, he has stated one additional fact. When he applied the brakes, one jeep car was coming from a Bombay side and it has slipped and dashed his S.T. bus. The height of road divider was 4 inches. He want to suggest that this jeep car is nothing but the car in which the deceased was traveling. According to him the accident has not taken place because of his mistake.

On the point of income, one Ramesh Pai, Income-tax Inspector and Ajit Shivaji Gaikwad, Divisional Traffic Officer of M.S.R.T.C. was examined.

The widow and son of the deceased who have entered into witness box were not traveling in the car. Whatever they have stated is on the basis of information they have gathered from other sources. During their evidence the following police papers were tendered in evidence:

So the Tribunal was having the version given by the claimants and evidence of the S.T. driver. There is evidence of Naresh Rawat who was driving the car. He is witness to the accident. He has explained how the accident has taken place. He has explained how he was driving the car in a moderate speed and how the S.T. bus coming from the opposite direction drove the bus at high speed. The S.T. bus after crossing the road divider has hit his car and went ahead and stopped near the culvert. Even the S.T. bus was hanging on the culvert itself shows the speed of the S.T. bus. During his cross examination the theory of the motorcycle moving ahead of the bus was put to him, but he had not seen any motorcycle ahead of the S.T. bus

Tribunal was having the police papers and certain photographs. It will be material to see the findings given by the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence. The Tribunal has assessed the correctness of the theory put up by the S.T. driver. It is relating to applying the brakes by the motorcycle driver. Initially, the motorcycle was behind the bus. However, it overtook the S.T. bus and without giving a signal it went ahead. The location of the motorcycle is also explained. One wheel of the motorcycle was on a kaccha road and other wheel was on a Tar road. The Tribunal opined that the bus driver was in a high uncontrollable speed and that is why it has not stopped after applying the brake but it jumped the road divider and went on other side of the road and damaged the car.

The Tribunal further opined that the bus driver said that his bus went to other side of the divider because of the dash with the jeep but at the same time accordingly it is no body’s case that the jeep had crossed the road divider so the witness was not telling the whole truth. Tribunal opined that motorcycle was not the cause of the accident. Tribunal applied the principle of Res Ispa loquitur. The Tribunal opined that the accident took place due to sole negligence of the bus driver.

Even if we presume that the motorcycle was ahead of bus and applied the brake, the question is how the S.T. driver has crossed his side and overtook the road divider and came on a way which is kept for the vehicles coming from the opposite direction. The S.T. driver might have taken a right turn but the issue is if he could have been in a moderate speed then he could have avoided the accident and not overtook the road divider. Not only he overtook the road divider but gave a dash to the car coming from opposite direction.

When we have seen the photographs of the car and description given in spot panchnama, we can ascertain the extent of damage caused to the car. The impact was so forceful that it has damaged the front driver side portion of the car. This indicates that the driver of S.T. has not driven the bus in a moderate speed and in fact he has driven in a excessive speed so that it was beyond his control when he applied the brakes.

I find no error in the findings given by the Tribunal about the sole negligence of S.T. driver. In fact Ms. Gokhale relied upon the observations in case of Nishant Singh v/s. Oriental Insurance Company^{11.2018 AIRSC 2118}. There is a reference of Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations 1989. It talks about distance from vehicles in front.

The expression sufficient distance is not defined in the regulations. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is a safe distance of atleast 2 to 3 seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collusion and to allow the following driver time to respond. It cannot be said that the S.T. driver drove the S.T. bus by maintaining a sufficient distance. Hence, I find not fault in the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the point of negligence.

Now the issue is whether the income decided by the Tribunal is proper and whether the quantum of compensation is proper. This Court is verifying the correctness of these findings because the claimants are asking for enhancement of the compensation. It will be material to consider the evidence on the point of income. Even the M.S.R.T.C. have examined two witnesses on the point of income. Details of witnesses are as follows:

On the basis of above evidence let us find out the amount of income concluded by the Tribunal.

So far as occupation of deceased-Purushottam Puri is not in dispute. He was an Advocate practicing in M.A.C.T. Mumbai, Workmens’ Compensation Court, Alibag Court and Thane Court. He was having a office at Flora Fountain, Mumbai on ownership basis. He was staying at Chembur along with his family. It is a proved fact that the deceased was member of a Lions Club.

There is reference of income tax acknowledgment for the 4 assessment years. They are for assessment year 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. The date of accident is 4^th September 1992. According to Ms. Gokhale even the acknowledgment submitted for assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93 can be considered because it pertain to the period when the deceased was alive. Her contention is merely because the acknowledgment are submitted after the death of deceased, such acknowledgment cannot be overlooked. She places reliance on following judgments: 1) Sayar and others v/s. Ramkaran and others^{22.Civil Appeal No.13912/2025} 2) Nidhi Bhargava and others v/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. And others.^{33.2025 All SCR 1857}

According to her even the amount deducted on depreciation and the interest paid on loan amount is to be included in the income of the deceased. Whereas Mr. Gala for M.S.R.T.C. relied upon observations in case of Malarvizhi and others v/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and anr.^{44.(2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 228} wherein depreciation was not considered while computing annual income in a claim before the Tribunal. Because it is considered as a deduction allowed for decline in real value of tangible or intangible assets over its useful life.

The details of these acknowledgments are as follows:

It is true the acknowledgment for the assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93 is dated 24^th February 1993 i.e. after the death of the deceased on 4^th September 1992 whereas other two acknowledgments pertain to the period earlier to the death of the deceased. So the acknowledgment for 1991-92 and 1992-93 are admittedly filed after the date of accident. This is admitted by witness Gupta, Chartered Accountant for the deceased.

On the basis of the observations in above judgments the acknowledgment of the income tax deposit for the assessment year submitted after the death can be considered after conducting judicial scrutiny. No doubt the assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93 also covers the period when the assessee/deceased was alive.

It is true Income tax officer Ramesh Pai could not produce the record pertaining to assessment year 1988-89 and 1992-93. However, the record produced by witness Ajit Gaikwad for M.S.R.T.C., even though not the original, can be considered for two reasons; first they were handed over on behalf of claimants to M.S.R.T.C. and M.S.R.T.C. wants to rely upon them. At the same time, the income-tax documents for the assessment year 1988-89 and 1989-90 cannot be discarded as contended by Ms. Gokhale.

I am inclined to consider the deduction on account of interest on car loan in the income of the deceased but not the depreciation. Because depreciation is not towards the payment the assessee is required to make but it is by way of fiction that the value of the asset is depreciated. As against this the assessee is required to pay certain amount towards the interest on loan availed. For income-tax calculation it is considered as a deduction but for the purpose of considering the income of the deceased in compensation claim it can certainly be added in the income of the deceased.

Ms. Gokhale also relied upon the observations in case of Rashmirekha Tripathy and others v/s. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and others^{55.2026 SCC Online SC 1256} . In case of self employed individuals when there are more than one returns, there can be average of past two to three years.

We will find that the income for assessment year for which there is acknowledgment obtained after the death of the deceased has substantially increased as compared to the income for the earlier two periods. It is the contention of Ms. Gokhale that the income of the Advocate increases depending upon the number of years of practice he has put in. If above figures are considered the monthly income of the deceased will be as follows:

On this background, if the findings of the Tribunal are considered, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-. I find the assessment done by the Tribunal is proper. He has neither considered the income for initial two assessments nor the income for later two assessments. But he has found out the average. Even though learned Advocate Ms. Gokhale has taken lot of pains in convincing me that the income considered is on a lower side. After appreciation of the materials on record , I am unable to accept her submission. I appreciate her efforts.

There are certain heads for which compensation is not granted by the Tribunal. These heads are recognised by the Supreme Court in various judgments. Compensation on those heads can certainly be granted. They are as follows:

Hence, enhancement is granted only for Rs.2,28,000/-. Hence, the order: