1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1271 OF 2005 1. Godavari Pralhad Karale, Age 38 Yrs. Occ. Household, 2. Prasad Pralhad Karale, Age 24 years, Occu. Education. All R/o Kapurwadi, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ...APPELLANT V E R S U S 1. Central Government of India Notice to be served on Secretary Defence Ministry, New Delhi) 2. The Commanding Officer, (C.O.) B.T.R. Military Camp, Nagar-Aurangabad Road, Opp, Inspection Bunglow, Ahmednagar. 3. Gulabsing Shriprasadilal, Age 56 years, Occ. Service, R/o B.T.R.A. A'nagar. 4. Jayashri Pralhad Karale, Age 21 years, Occ. Education. 5. Vaishali Pralhad Karale, Age 19 years, Occu. Education. R.4, 5 dismissed as per order dated 15/4/2009. 6. Bhivsen Haribatrao Karale, Age 70 years, Occu. Nil. 7. Yamunabai W/o Bhivsen Karale, Age 65 years, Occu. Household, Both R/o Kapurwadi, Tq. Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS 2 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 09/03/2010 JUDGMENT :- 1) Heard Mr. Bedre and Mr. Patil for the respective parties. Admit. The matter is finally heard at admission stage. 2) The only point in the matter is about enhancement of the claim under Motor Vehicles Act in terms of Section 166 thereof. The learned Judge, the Chairman, M.A.C.T. Ahmednagar passed order on 19/8/2005, observing that the negligence is to be shared by the Opponent No.3 in the said case i.e. driver of the vehicle belonging to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, with the deceased Pralhad Karale. The learned Judge though found, based on the status of the deceased Pralhad Karale to be a driver with the Irrigation Department, having salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month at the age of 41 years, however, considering the nature of the accident, apportioned the same to 50%. 3) The appreciation of evidence by the learned Judge is reflected in paragraph 6 and 7 of the judgment. Needless to say that the claimant Godavari could not be expected to have personal knowledge about the accident. There was collusion between the Scooter driven by the deceased and Military vehicle. The report recorded by Police Head Constable at Exh. 23 illustrate about the nature and manner in which the accident has taken place. The impact indeed was from the Military vehicle and in the process the deceased Pralhad could not 3 control his vehicle and dashed against Military vehicle on front side portion. The impact due to heavy military vehicle was such that the deceased was virtually crushed. This aspect needs to be considered. The appreciation by the learned Judge to share the responsibility to the extent of 50% each in the situation needs interference. Taking recourse to the First Information Report and the spot panchnama, it is obvious even if the responsibility is to be saddled to the Scooter driver i.e. deceased Pralhad Karale, it could not exceed more than 25%. In the situation the appeal is partly allowed in the following terms. 4) No change in the of Award Rs. 4,60,800/- as effected by the learned Judge in paragraph 10 of the order. The liability of Resp. No.1 to 3 to pay is enhanced and modified, as Rs. 3,45,600/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1/12/1999 till the amount is realised. Further apportionment on deposit as indicated in paragraph 3 of the operative part of the order remain unaltered. No costs. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE cmg/fa127105