Judgment FA-1427-2025 J..odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.1427 OF 2025 APPELLANTS (Original petitioners) (on RA) 1. Ashwini Wd/o Sandip kokode, Aged about 25 years, Occ.: Household, 2. Swaransh S/o. Sandip Kokode, Aged about 5 Years, Occ.: Student, Appellant No.2 is minor, through its natural Guardian mother, the Appellant No.1. 3. Sugabai W/o. Ramdas Kokode, Aged about 67 Years, Occ.: Household, 4. Ramdas S/o. Baga Kokode, Aged about 72 Years, Occ.: Labour, The appellants are R/o. At Post Fiskuti, Tq. Mul, Dist. Chandrapur-441225 ...VERSUS… RESPONDENTS (Original Respondents) (on RA) 1. The Controller, M.S.R.T.C, Through its Regional office at Ganeshpeth Colony, Near Bus Stand, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur - 440018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. B.S. Mandhare, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for the Respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WITH CROSS-OBJECTION NO.91 OF 2026 CROSS-OBJECTOR Or. Resp. on R.A. : M.S.R.T.C., Through Divisional Controller, Ganeshpeth Colony, Near Bus Stand, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur-440018 ...VERSUS… Pvf 2026:BHC-NAG:13411 Judgment FA-1427-2025 J..odt 2 RESPONDENTS Ori. Claimants 1. Ashwini Sandip Kokode, Age - 25 Years. 2. Swaransh Sanddip Kokode, Age - 5 Years. Appellant No.2 is minor, through its Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No.1. 3. Sugabai Ramdaas Kokodde, Age - 67 Years. 4. Ramdas S/o. Bbaga Kookodde, Age - 72 Years. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for the Cross-Objector. Mr. B.S. Mandhare, Advocate for Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J . DATE : 30/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. With the consent of learned counsels for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. In both these proceedings, the challenge is to the judgment and award dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Nagpur, in M.A.C.P. No.366/2023. The facts which are undisputed in the present appeal are as under :- 3. On 13.02.2023 at about 09:30 a.m., the deceased Sandip Ramdas Kokode, was riding a two wheeler vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-34-CA-3704 and was traveling towards village Mul. When he came near Uma River on Borchandli to Mul Road, at that time, S.T. Bus bearing registration No.MH-34-C-9158 came from opposite side in rash and negligent manner and resultantly, the accident occurred. In the said Pvf Judgment FA-1427-2025 J..odt 3 accident, the deceased Sandip Kokode, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Police Station, Mul, Dist. Chandrapur, registered Crime No.75 of 2023 against the driver of S.T. Bus. 4. It is also undisputed that the deceased Sandip Kokode, was 35 years old and was doing labour work at Jalaram Rice Mill, Mul and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The appellants in First Appeal No.1427 of 2025, are the legal heirs of deceased Sandip Kokode who have filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. 5. In response to the notices issued by the learned Tribunal, the respondent-MSRTC, appeared in the matter and filed its written statement on record. In the written statement at Exh.12, the respondent-MSRTC has taken a specific stand that at that relevant time the deceased Sandip Kokode, who was driving the motorcycle along with a pillion rider while overtaking a pickup van at excessive speed, dashed the S.T. Bus, which was coming from the opposite side/right side. It is also stated that the bus was on its left side and the dash given by the motorcycle was from the right side of the bus. Due to the said dash, the deceased succumbed to injuries. According to the MSRTC, the entire negligence was of the deceased and not of the bus driver. Hence, it is stated that the Police Station Officer, Mul, had wrongly registered Pvf Judgment FA-1427-2025 J..odt 4 the offence against the driver of the S.T. Bus, on the say of the informant. 6. In the light of these submissions of the rival parties, the issues were framed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Nagpur and the parties were permitted to lead evidence before the learned Tribunal. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, Ms. Ashwini Wd/o. Sandip Kokode, led the evidence and stated that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased and that the deceased being working as a labourer, they are entitled for the compensation. 7. On behalf of the respondent, the evidence of the bus driver namely Deepak Baliram Kotnake, was recorded at Exh.27. He has categorically stated that at 09:30 a.m. on 13.02.2023 there were 27 passengers in the bus. When the bus reached near the bridge of the Nala, at that time one pickup van came from the opposite side. He states that the bus was on the left side of the road. Behind that pickup van, there was one motorcycle. At the time of the incident, the motorcyclist suddenly overtook the pickup van and came in front of his bus. Therefore, on noticing him he took the bus below the road and lower down the speed. However, the motorcyclist was unable to control his motorcycle and resultantly, collided with the bus. Due to the said Pvf Judgment FA-1427-2025 J..odt 5 incident, the motorcyclist sustained injuries and succumbed to death. Therefore, according to him, the motorcyclist was responsible for the accident and not the bus driver. 8. In the light of this evidence, which was made available before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition by holding that there was a contributory negligence. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence and the oral submissions made by the parties before it, held that it was a case of contributory negligence and thereby, the claimants were held entitled for compensation of Rs.17,02,000/- inclusive the amount of no-fault liability along with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the institution of the claim till its final realization. The said judgment of the learned Tribunal, is under challenge by the claimants as well as by the MSRTC, before this Court, by way of the present appeal and cross-objection. 9. In the present matter, the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence which was made available by both the parties on record. The learned Tribunal has specifically relied upon the spot panchanama at Exh.17 and after perusal of the same, recorded a finding that the bus was on the extreme left side of the road towards Chamorshi whereas, the motorcyclist was proceeding towards Mul. Therefore, it is clear that Pvf Judgment FA-1427-2025 J..odt 6 in an attempt of overtaking, the deceased Sandip Kokode (motorcyclist) who was driving the motorcycle, lost his control over the motorcycle and due to his excessive speed, collided with the bus and the accident took place in the matter. 10. Accordingly, on the basis of this evidence, the learned Tribunal held that it was a case of negligence on the part of the deceased Sandip Kokode. In respect of the negligence on the part of driver of the S.T. Bus, the learned Tribunal has rightly recorded that the driver of the bus reached near the bridge of the Nala, at that time, the accident occurred and according to him, there was a turning near the spot and due to the said turning near the Nala, the accident occurred. 11. In the present matter, I have perused the spot panchanama, which is at Exh.17. The spot panchanama, nowhere shows that there was any turning as stated by the witness, namely, Deepak Kotnake, in his evidence. So also, in a cross-examination, a suggestion was given to Deepak, that there was no such turning, but, he has denied the said suggestion. This statement of Deepak Kotnake, is contrary to the spot panchanama. 12. In the present case, it is clear that as there was no turning, the bus driver could have seen the motorcycle which was coming from the opposite side and therefore, it was necessary for him to take due Pvf Judgment FA-1427-2025 J..odt 7 care or stop the bus, but, the bus being in a high speed, he could not stop it. This fact can be confirmed from the fact that the bus turned turtle and landed in the Nala and the same can be happened only if the bus was in a high speed. If the bus would have been at a slow speed, the driver could have easily stopped the bus on the spot and would have easily avoided the accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered these aspects and held the bus driver is equally responsible for the said accident and stated that it is the case of the contributory negligence. 13. After going through the record and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, it is clear that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the controversy involved in the matter as well as the law laid down by this Court, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In view of above, there is no need for any interference of this Court either in the first appeal or in the cross-objection filed by the respondent No.1 in the matter. Accordingly, both the first appeal and the cross-objection stand dismissed. 14. Respondent-MSRTC, is directed to deposit the decreetal amount as per the judgment and award dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Nagpur, in M.A.C.P. Pvf Judgment FA-1427-2025 J..odt 8 No.366/2023, within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of this order. 15. After deposit of the said amount, the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same, subject to satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial), along with interest accrued thereupon, as per the proportions laid down by the learned Tribunal. No order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J . ) 𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁 Pvf