77-FA-1583-2025 (C) JUDGMENT.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1583 OF 2025 National Insurance Company Limited Ganesh Chandve Chambers, Raviwar Peth, Powai Naka, Satara through Mumbai, Regional Office-II, 5th floor Sterling Cinema Bldg.65, Murzban Road, Fort, Mumbai - 1 ] ] ] ] ] …. Appellant Versus 1. Sarala Mohan Nair Age: 42 years, Occupation - Housewife ] ] 2. Ramadevi Shridhar Nair Age: 45 years, Occupation – Household Both R/o, Mohan vilas, Post Pallikunnu, Chetikkade, Via Mannankkad, District: Palakkad, State Kerala. ] ] ] ] ] 3. Maharashtra State Regional Transport Corporation Division Office S.T. Stand, Raviwar Peth, Satara. ] ] ] 4. M. N. Gopinatha Panicker Age-60, Occu-Nil, R/o.17/4, Type-III, Siporex Range Hills, Khadki, Pune. ] ] ] ] …. Respondents ----- Adv. S. S. Dwivedi for the Appellant (Through V. C. ). Mr. Nitesh V. Bhutekar for Respondent No. 3 (Through V. C.). ----- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 6th OCTOBER, 2025. Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/4 SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2025.10.13 19:41:57 +0530 77-FA-1583-2025 (C) JUDGMENT.doc ORAL JUDGMENT. : 1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara (for short, “the Tribunal”). 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant – Insurance Company that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the ST bus driver. The offence was registered against the ST bus driver. The ST bus driver did not step into witness box to prove the negligence of the Claimant i.e. maruti car driver, but the Tribunal has not considered this fact and has fixed 40% liability on the Claimant i.e. driver of maruti car, which is erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the appeal. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent - Corporation that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of maruti car, who gave a dash to the bus when it was taking a turn on the highway. The Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned order, and no interference is required in it and requested to dismiss the appeal. 4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned Shantanu S. Dhudum 2/4 77-FA-1583-2025 (C) JUDGMENT.doc order passed by the Tribunal. 5. It is Original Claimant’s case that driver of maruti car was driving the car on the highway on his correct side. At the same time, the bus suddenly took a right turn without giving any signal. Hence, the maruti car gave a dash to the ST bus and the accident occurred. The offence was registered against the driver of ST bus. 6. To prove the negligence of ST bus driver, the claimant relied on police papers. The ST bus driver also did not step into the witness box. While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has observed that while taking a turn, the ST bus driver should have been in slow speed, but there was damage to the front side of the Maruti Car and there was damage on the center portion of the bus. It shows that the maruti car gave dash on the centre portion of the bus and it was in high and excessive speed. On that ground, the Tribunal has fixed 60% contributory negligence on ST bus driver and 40% contributory negligence on maruti car driver. I do not find any infirmity in it. In my view, the maruti car ran into the centre portion of the bus, it shows that the driver of maruti car was driving it in high and excessive speed. I do find merit in the contention of learned counssel for the Appellant that accident occurred due to negligence of Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/4 77-FA-1583-2025 (C) JUDGMENT.doc the ST bus driver. 7. In view of above, I pass following order: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The statutory amount along with accrued interest be transmitted to the Tribunal. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rules. iii. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal. 8. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. ( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum 4/4