1 F.A. 1558,1786,1787/2010 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1558 OF 2010 Uzma Parveen D/o Abdul Hameed Age : 11 Yrs., Occ. Education Minor, U/g of real father A.Hameed S/o A.Wahab Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : New Basti, Badnera, Dist. Amravati. .... APPELLANT V E R S U S M.S.R.T.C. Through its Divisional Manager, Gangakhed road, Parbhani. .... RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. A.N.Ansari, Advocate for the appellant. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1786 OF 2010 Shaikh Hussain S/o Shaikh Diwan Age : 65 Yrs., Occ. Nil R/o : Pensionpura, Hingoli Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. .... APPELLANT V E R S U S M.S.R.T.C. Through its Divisional Manager, Gangakhed road, Parbhani. .... RESPONDENT 2 F.A. 1558,1786,1787/2010 - ( J ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. A.N.Ansari, Advocate for the appellant. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1787 OF 2010 Nanarao S/o Raghoji Shelke Age : 38 Yrs., Occ. Nil R/o : Shirad Shahpur, Tq. Aundha, Dist. Hingoli. .... APPELLANT V E R S U S M.S.R.T.C. Through its Divisional Manager, Gangakhed road, Parbhani. .... RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. A.N.Ansari, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28/09/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. All these Appeals involve common question of fact, as such are decided together. 3 F.A. 1558,1786,1787/2010 - ( J ) 3. The present appellants are the original claimants, who had filed petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation. 4. The appellant in First Appeal No. 1558 of 2010 had sustained permanent disability, whereas in First Appeal No. 1786 of 2010 and 1787 of 2010, the claimants are the dependants, filed claim petition on account of the death of the deceased in the accident. In all these claim petitions, an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed. The Tribunal at interim stage, considered that it is the case of contributory negligence and has rejected the claim in First Appeal No. 1558 of 2010 and awarded Rs. 25,000/- in other two First Appeals. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. The fact of accident having taken place is not disputed. The Courts have held that it is the case of contributory negligence. 6. At an interim stage, without recording of the evidence, such finding could not have been arrived at. More over, the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act are meant to succour the claimants and is the beneficial piece of legislation. Even the Apex Court in the case of Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa & another V/s C.S. Gurushanthappa & another reported in 2010 AIR SCW – 4918 has 4 F.A. 1558,1786,1787/2010 - ( J ) held that even when an accident did not take place due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle but due to the wrongful act, default or neglect of a person in respect of whose death or permanent disability, claim has been made, is still entitled for the amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. In the light of above, the order passed by the Tribunal is modified and the respondent in First Appeal No. 1558 of 2010 is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant and in First Appeal No. 1786 of 2010 and 1787 of 2010 the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants. The amount already paid would be adjusted from this amount. 8. Rule is accordingly made absolute. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 1558,1786,1787.2010