IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL No. 1796 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Vs Dr. Prabhakar S. Bhagwat ... Respondents (represented through L.Rs.) Mr. A. R. Patil, for the Appellant. Mrs. Gauri Godse, for the Respondent Nos. 1A to 1D. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : JANUARY 30, 2009. P.C.: ---- . An award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim of the present appellant, has given rise to the filing of this First Appeal. The appellant/State Government acting through its Executive Engineer filed a suit for damages/ compensation against the respondents, on account of damage caused to gantry fitted/erected on the bridge on the express highway in between Thane and Shahapur. According to the appellant, respondent No.1’s car was being driven rashly and negligently, on account of which the vehicle dashed against the gantry causing loss. 2. The parties lead oral evidence in support of their pleadings and after considering the evidence on - 2 - record, the Tribunal has observed that witness examined by the plaintiff - the Executive Engineer had never seen the spot of incident till the date of his deposition in the Court. Thus, there was hardly any evidence, much less reliable led by the plaintiff. In the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness it has come on the record that gantry was of black iron colour not visible at night and no employee of the department was posted at the said gantry. The police also did not register any offence against the driver of the vehicle, thereby indicating that the defendant was not negligent. Trial Court has also recorded a finding that no preventive steps were taken by the plaintiff, such as exhibiting warning lamps and/or red lights at the extreme end of the gantry. There was no elimination of light at the bridge i.e. at the site of the accident. Appreciating the overall evidence on record, a finding of fact has been recorded that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant’s vehicle was driven rashly and neglegently, and thus, dismissed the suit. Perused the award. The same takes a very possible view of the matter. It does not require any intereference by the appellate Court . In the result, there being no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. Sd/- - 3 - [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.]