Judgment FA-313-2011 J..odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.313 OF 2011 APPELLANT (ON R.A.) : The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, 4th Floor, M.E.C.L. Premises, Dr.Ambedkar Bhawan, Seminary Hills, Nagpur ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS 1) Smt. Vandanabai wd/o Vishvanath Gajbhiye, aged about 39 years; 2) Amit s/o Vishwanath Gajbhiye, aged about 20 years; 3) Vinit s/o. Vishwanath Gajbhiye, aged about 18 years; Nos. 1 to 3 all r/o. Opposite Dilip Tayde’s House, Gadge Nagar, Amravati, Tq. And Distt. Amravati. 4) Jitendra son of Ashok Bhavsar, aged about adult, R/o at Post Nizampur, Post Nizampur, Tq.Sakri, Distt.Dhule. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M.B. Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Narendra Dhoot, o/b of Mr. G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 served on merit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. RESERVED ON : 18 /06 /2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 02/07/2026 JUDGMENT : Pvf 2026:BHC-NAG:8297 Judgment FA-313-2011 J..odt 2 1. Heard Mr. M.B. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Narendra Dhoot, appearing on behalf of Mr. G.K. Mundhada, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Though respondent No.4 has been served on merits, till date, nobody appears on his behalf. 2. By the consent of learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. The appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd., challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. No.44/2003. Vide the said judgment and award, the learned MACT, Amravati, was pleased to partly allow the claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and thereby, directed the appellant-Insurance Company, respondent No.4 herein and one Mr. Senpad Uttam Mane, to jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation of Rs.4,07,280/- (inclusive the amount of no fault liability), to each of the claimants equally along with interest at the rate of six percent per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 4. Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and award, the appellant-Insurance Company approached this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). Pvf Judgment FA-313-2011 J..odt 3 5. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, before the MACT, Amravati, wherein it was contended that on 02.10.1997 the deceased Vishwanath Gajbhiye was driving S.T. Bus belonging to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short “MSRTC”) bearing registration No.MH-12/R-2135. He was driving the said vehicle from Nagpur to Chandur Bazar. At about 01:10 p.m., the said S.T. Bus collided with a truck bearing registration No.MH-18/B-7598, resulting in the death of deceased Vishwanath Gajbhiye, on the spot. The respondents herein being legal heirs of the deceased, claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- towards loss of income, mental shock, loss of amenities. The truck which collided with the S.T. Bus, was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and was owned by respondent No.4 herein. The learned MACT, Amravati, while framing the issues as regards the rash and negligent driving of the truck, breach of insurance policy and entitlement to compensation, proceeded further to pass a reasoned order, thereby directing the driver and owner along with appellant-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.4,07,280/- jointly and severally to respondent Nos.1 to 3, along with interest at the rate of six percent per annum. Pvf Judgment FA-313-2011 J..odt 4 6. As per the findings recorded by the learned MACT, Amravati, it is observed that the appellant-Insurance Company as well as owner and driver of the truck did not adduce any evidence to show that the deceased was driving the S.T. Bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. Learned MACT, Amravati, had also observed that the appellant-Insurance Company did not enter into the witness box and not examined any witness to prove that there was a breach of policy conditions by the deceased and accordingly, proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and award. 7. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that the learned MACT, Amravati failed to consider the evidence brought before it in a proper perspective. According to him, there is sufficient material to show that the deceased himself was driving the S.T. Bus in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident and therefore, it was not appropriate to hold the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation to legal heirs of deceased. He further submitted that the legal heirs of deceased have received a compensation from the MSRTC and as such, the said compensation ought to have been deducted by the learned MACT, Amravati, while passing the impugned judgment and award. Pvf Judgment FA-313-2011 J..odt 5 8. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court in the matter of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Hathibhai Senghabhai Ruppura and Others, reported in 2003 II CLR 491 and accordingly, prayed for quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned MACT, Amravati. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 strongly opposed the instant appeal and submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned MACT, Amravati. It has been rightly observed by the learned MACT, Amravati, that the appellant-Insurance Company failed to prove before the Tribunal, that the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as such, are not entitled to claim compensation from the appellant-Insurance Company. He further submitted that the appellant-Insurance Company did not examine any other witness to prove that the deceased S.T. Bus driver has committed any breach of policy condition and therefore, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal. 10. After considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for parties and after going through the record available with this Court, it is pertinent to note here that the deceased Vishwanath Pvf Judgment FA-313-2011 J..odt 6 Gajbhiye was a driver and he was driving S.T. Bus bearing registration No.MH-12/R-2135 owned by MSRTC from Nagpur to Chandur Bazar on 02.10.1997 at about 01:10 p.m. It can be seen from the documents at Exh.42 the First Information Report and Exh.46 Spot Panchanama, that on the unfortunate date and time, the deceased was driving the S.T. Bus and at the same time a truck loaded with LPG Gas Cylinder was being driven at a high speed, lost its control and gave dash to the MSRTC Bus. It is found that the bus was on the right side of the road and it was overtaking the other vehicle. Though it is stated in the spot panchanama that it was overtaking the other vehicle, but by itself it cannot be considered that the said bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner. 11. It is settled position of law that the First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of events. So, without examining the proper eye-witnesses, it cannot be considered that the deceased was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. It is also found that the dash was given by the truck to the MSRTC bus. Hence, it is made clear that the appellant-Insurance Company failed to prove that the deceased died due to his own rash and negligent driving. As against the second submissions that the compensation awarded under the Worksmen’s Compensation Act, ought to have been deducted by the Pvf Judgment FA-313-2011 J..odt 7 learned MACT, Amravati. It is pertinent to note here that as regards the compensation awarded to the respondents/claimants under the Workmen Compensation Act, there is nothing brought before this Court as to how much amount has been paid to respondents/claimants under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and in which proceedings it is paid, is also not brought before the Court. Thus, it is not clear under which head, the said compensation has been granted to the Workmen’s Compensation, which is required to be deducted from the award passed by the learned MACT, Amravati, in order to avoid the double payment for the losses on the same head. 12. In that view of the matter, the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kanika and Others, reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 196, wherein it has been held that it must first be proved that respondents/claimants shall receive the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which was towards the pay and allowances (loss of income) and the same may be directed to prevent a double recovery. The deductions from the compensation cannot be made based on mere assumptions under the Act. 13. In this case, there is nothing to suggest that respondents/claimants have received any compensation under the Pvf Judgment FA-313-2011 J..odt 8 Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore, it is inappropriate to assume that whatever amount is received by them under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is required to be deducted from the compensation under the Act. Thus, the instant appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order :- O R D E R (i) The First Appeal bearing No.313 of 2011 is hereby dismissed. (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J) 𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁 Pvf