Judgment FA-408-2021 J..odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.408 OF 2021 APPELLANT :- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, Buldhana, Division Office, Buldhana, Tq. and Dist. Buldhana (Ori. Respondent on R.A.) ... VERSUS… RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Shital Vijay Khare, Aged 30 yrs. Occu. Household. 2. Vishant Vijay Khare, Aged 8 yrs..Occu. Education, Minor through guardian mother Respdt No.1. 3. Sau. Sumanbai Sampat Khare, Aged 76 yrs. Occu. Household. R-3 & 4 deleted [being dead] as per order of Court dt. 14.7.2021] 4. Sampat Sakharam Khare, Aged 82 yrs. Occu. Agriculturist, All R/o Tandulwadi, Tq. and Dist. Buldhana (Ori. Claimants on R.A.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.P. Panpalia, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B.K. Suchak, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . DATE : 01/10/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. Pvf 2026:BHC-NAG:13407 Judgment FA-408-2021 J..odt 2 2. By this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and award dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana, in M.A.C.P. No.147 of 2016. The undisputed facts of the present appeal are as under :- 3. On 17.07.2016, the deceased Vijay Sampat Khare, was driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No.MH-28-S-2673, towards Aurangabad from his residential village Tandulwadi, Taluka and District Buldhana. When he reached near Nala of Jamb Shivar, one S.T. Bus, bearing No.MH-14-BT-4079 arrived from opposite side at an excessive speed and was driven from wrong side of the road. The said bus gave a forcible dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to which the accident occurred and the deceased Vijay Khare, succumbed to death on spot. It is further pointed out that in view of the said accident, a police case was registered vide Crime No.93 of 2016 with Police Station, Dhad, against the driver of the bus. Hence, on this basis of the said police documents, the legal heirs of Vijay Khare, filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal against the present appellant and thereby, claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- including no-fault liability. 4. In the said proceedings, the present appellant appeared and filed written statement opposing the claim petition filed by the Pvf Judgment FA-408-2021 J..odt 3 respondents/claimants. It is the stand of the present appellant that the driver of the bus was an experienced person and was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed. According to the appellant, the alleged accident was taken placed as the deceased was driving the motorcycle in a negligent manner and was on the wrong side of the road. Therefore, due to his negligence, the deceased gave dash to the S.T. Bus and succumbed to his injuries. As such, in short the submission of the appellant before the learned Tribunal was that the deceased was negligent in driving the motorcycle and that due to his own fault, the accident had occurred in the matter. 5. It is pertinent to note that before the learned Tribunal, the respondents-claimants entered into the witness box and reiterated their case, which was stated in their claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The said claimants were cross-examined by the present appellant. However, from the said evidence which was available on record and the cross-examination which was done at the instance of the present appellant, nothing has been elicited out and the witnesses remained unshakened in the matter. 6. It is pertinent to note that once the appellant had taken a specific stand that the deceased was responsible for the accident, it was Pvf Judgment FA-408-2021 J..odt 4 expected that the appellant should enter into the witness box before the learned Tribunal and establish their case. But, admittedly, no witness from the present appellant had entered into the witness box to establish their case before the learned Tribunal. As a result, the statements of the claimants and the evidence which was brought on record, remained uncontroverted in the matter. 7. It is well settled position of law that in a claim petition, the learned Tribunal has to decide the claim petition on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and strict proof of evidence is not required. The learned Tribunal, therefore, considering the evidence available on record, decided the claim petition. In the present appeal, no any substantial ground is raised to point out that the judgment of the learned Claim Tribunal is perverse or illegal. The only aspect which requires consideration is the rate of interest, which is required to be considered as per the prevailing banking rate, at the time of accident. 8. A perusal of the judgment shows that the learned Tribunal while deciding the quantum of compensation, has rightly appreciated the income of the deceased and on that basis, after doing proper calculations, awarded the compensation of Rs.13,86,250/- to the Pvf Judgment FA-408-2021 J..odt 5 claimants in the matter. Considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and upon perusal of the record, following order is passed :- O R D E R (i) First Appeal No.408/2021 is partly allowed. (ii) The Judgment and award dated 29.11.2019 passed in M.A.C.P. No.147 of 2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana, is hereby modified only to the extent that instead of 9% interest per annum, the appellant shall pay the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application, till its full realization on the amount of Rs.13,86,250/-. (iii) The appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount as per the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana, with the Registry of this Court, within a period of three months from today. (iv) After the deposit of the compensation amount, the respondents/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same, subject to satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial). 9. In view of above, the first appeal stand disposed of. No order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . ) 𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁 Pvf