: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.646 OF 1993 District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Satara .. Appellants Versus Housabai Waman Kumbhar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. M.B. Mehere for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The First Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara, dated 29th April, 1993. The facts giving rise to the present First Appeal are as follows : 2. The husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondent Nos.2 to 6 was travelling in a vehicle owned by the appellants. It is the case of the appellants that their driver, i.e. respondent No.7 herein, permitted the victim of the accident : 2 : to travel with him in the jeep. According to the appellants, Waman, i.e. the deceased, was the brother of respondent No.7 and, therefore, their driver permitted him to travel with him in the jeep. Besides Waman, another brother Arjun was also travelling with them. The appellants contend that Arjun forcibly started driving the jeep without any permission from respondent No.7 and, as a result, they met with the accident on 20th September, 1985 on the highway near Karad in which Waman died. The respondent Nos.1 to 7 preferred an application for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara on 16th April, 1986. The application was resisted by the Zilla Parishad, i.e. the appellants herein, by filing a written statement on 1st August, 1987. It was contended in the written statement that the Zilla Parishad was not liable as the deceased was travelling in the jeep which was being driven by his brother Arjun rather than the authorized driver of the Zilla Parishad when it met with the accident. : 3 : 3. Evidence was led by the parties. The Tribunal held that there was no dispute that Waman, i.e. the husband of respondent No.1, was travelling in the jeep when he died in the accident. The trial court disbelieved the contention of the appellants that Madhukar, i.e. respondent No.7, was not driving the jeep when the accident occurred. The trial court disbelieved the contention of the appellant that Madhukar’s brother Arjun had forcibly driven the jeep. The trial court awarded compensation to the claimants of Rs.30,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the claim application till realization. 4. On a perusal of the judgment impugned in the present First Appeal, I do not find any reason to take a different view from the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal. There is no evidence on record to indicate that respondent No.7, the authorized driver of the appellants, was not driving the jeep when the accident occurred. The trial court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of the respondent No.7 and has held that his contention that Arjun : 4 : forcibly took over the keys of the jeep could not be believed. It appears that Special Civil Suit No. 309 of 1989 was filed by the Zilla Parishad, i.e. the appellants herein, against respondent No.7 for recovery of the compensation on the ground that the accident occurred when he was driving the jeep. This factor has rightly weighed with the trial court and, therefore, it has disbelieved the evidence of respondent No.7. In fact, the trial court has observed that the appellants in its plaint in Special Civil Suit No.309 of 1989 had alleged that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.7 as he was driving under the influence of alcohol. 5. The Tribunal has marshalled the evidence correctly and has appreciated the evidence in its true perspective. Proper inferences have been drawn. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara. 6. The First Appeal is dismissed. ......