Smt. Sadhana & Ors. vs Vishnu Laxman Jadhav & Anr.

Smt.Savitaben Jhaverchand Shah, ] Aged about 65 years, Occupation :- ] House wife, Residing at :- A–5/402, ] Chhabhaiya Park, Kapoor Bawdi, ] ...Appellants Thane–Bhivandi Road, Thane–400 607. ](Original Applicants) Versus

Vishnu Laxman Jadhav, ] Aged about 52 years, Occupation:Service ] (M.S.R.T.C. Driver), Residing at:- ] Siddharth Nagar, Shantibai Shikhare’s ] Room Kopri, Colony, Thane (East), ] Taluka : Thane, District : Thane. ] Navi Mumbai, District : Thane. ] ...Opponent No.1

Maharashtra State Road Transport ] Corporation, a statutory Corporation ] having its Central or Head Office at ] Maharashtra Vahatuk Bhavan, A.B.Nair ] Road, Bombay–400 008 and having its ] one of the offices at Bombay–Agra Road, ] ...Opponent No.2 Thane. ] (Respondents) ====================================================

==================================================== CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 24^th AUGUST 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Heard learned Advocate for the Appellants.

In fact, on 10^th August 2026, there was an assurance from Respondent No.2–Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (“MSRTC”) to argue this matter today. However, when it is called out, no one is present on behalf of the Respondents. I have no alternative to hear the Appellants and to decide it on merits as the Appeal is pending for the last 22 years.

The only issue involved in this Appeal is “whether the Tribunal was justified in granting only 50% of the adjudicated amount of compensation to the Claimants”. For three reasons, the Tribunal has held the deceased driver responsible for 50%. They are as follows:-

The deceased could not produce the driving license.

There was over-seating on the scooter.

The deceased driver was also responsible for his death.

The widow of the deceased who is eye witness has deposed so also, one Hemant Amarchand Shah who runs Engineering Workshop was examined as employer. The Income Tax consultant of the deceased by name Dilip Shah is also examined as a witness. Whereas, on behalf of the Respondents, Purandar Ramchandra Dhanawade who is a conductor in the bus was examined. On the basis of above evidence, the Tribunal has granted only 50% compensation.

Learned Advocate for the Appellants has taken me through the evidence and the findings. In any eventuality, the deceased cannot be non suited for not possessing the driving license. If he is not possessing, at the most, he can be prosecuted. The Insurance Companies are taking defense that there is breach of policy as the driver of the offending vehicle is not possessing a driving license. Such defense can be taken because there is contract of insurance with the insured and driver is a servant of the employer / insured. This is not the scenario in this Appeal. The Tribunal committed an error.

On 30^th March 1992, at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased Rohit along with his wife and two sons left the house on a scooter. They started from Kapurbawadi and then passed through Pokharan Road No.2. In all, they were four persons. This can be considered as one of the factor for blaming the deceased if it has contributed to the accident and not otherwise. This is not the factual scenario.

On the point of accident, we have got the evidence of widow and conductor. It will material to consider how the accident took place. It is as follows:-

The deceased brought his scooter for taking turn towards Golden Dyes Company for proceeding to Vartaknagar. They were about to take right turn, at that time, one S.T. bus came from Thane speedily and gave dash to a scooter.

Whereas, the conductor Purandar was in the bus which started from Thane Railway Station. The bus stopped at Golden Dyes Bus Stop. The bus was driven by Y.L.Jadhav. At the time of evidence, he was not in the employment of MSRTC as he has resigned. The bus was crossing Majiwada crossing and the conductor has given a signal to slow down the vehicle coming from Bombay Highway Road. At that time, the scooter came speedily and dashed to the bus near driver’s side bumper. The Tribunal does not find his evidence reliable because it was improbable for him to see the scooter coming from wrong side of the bus as he was at the rear door of the bus. His evidence was not considered as reliable.

The Tribunal has considered answer given by the widow in cross-examination. She has answered “It so happened that after I fell down, I realised that there was an accident…. I am not in a condition to state as to whether I have seen the S.T. bus prior to giving dash by the same to our scooter. I am unable to state as to whether the concerned S.T. bus gave dash to our scooter by bumper on the driver side of the said bus”.

However, the Tribunal has overlooked the other part of her evidence. She could not see the S.T. bus giving dash to the scooter by bumper on the driver side of the bus. During chief-examination, she has answered about the dash given by the S.T. bus to the scooter. She heard words of her husband “Ye kya karta hai” and then due to dash by the bus, they were thrown from the scooter.

The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the widow has witnessed the incident. It is also important to note there is FIR registered against the S.T. driver Shri.Jadhav. It was lodged by Mahadev Vithoba Hadwale police. He has categorically mentioned that the S.T. driver has driven the bus by overlooking the traffic condition at the signal and given dash to the scooter and they were responsible for rash and negligent driving.

The Tribunal has categorically observed that leaving the employment by the S.T. driver is no ground for not examining him.

When the Tribunal has discarded the evidence of the conductor, the Tribunal ought to have held the S.T. driver entirely responsible. The Tribunal was wrong in holding the deceased 50% responsible merely on the basis of some answer given by the widow. Hence, those findings need to be set aside. The S.T. driver has to be held 100% responsible for the accident.

There is Civil Misc.Application filed for production of driving license. It shows that the deceased was possessing the driving license upto 24^th March 1996. I have allowed the production. Even otherwise on this ground, the deceased cannot be non suited.

The total income of the deceased is mentioned in paragraph No.4. It was Rs.2,250/- per month. He was working with Ujwal Engineering Private Limited and it is Rs.1000/- per month by way of commission. The details of compensation are given in paragraph No.31. They are as follows:-

The age of the deceased was 34 years and 8 months.

The multiplier was 17.

The deduction towards the personal expenses was considered as 1/3^rd (Paragraph No.29).

Towards the loss of consortium, it was Rs.25,000/- and love affection and care, it was Rs.25,000/-.

So, the total compensation was arrived at Rs.5,99,100/-.

For the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that deduction of 50% is erroneous. It needs to be set aside. The Claimants are entitled to full compensation. Hence the order:-

The Appeal is allowed.

The Award dated 19^th September 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Thane is modified as follows:-

The Respondent No.2–MSRTC is directed to pay Rs.5,99,100/- (Rupees Five Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred) to the Appellants.

Now, they are directed to pay Rs.2,99,550/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty) within a period of 8 weeks from today.

They are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% from the date of Petition till deposit on Rs.2,99,550/-(Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty).

The Tribunal to disburse the amount as per the Award amongst the Claimants.

Additional Court Fee, if any, be paid.

In the light of the above observations, the Appeal stands disposed of.

The Civil Application is not on board. It is taken on board and disposed of.