1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.140 OF 2001 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1010 OF 1997 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2001 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.252 OF 2001 Shri.Shivaji Dattatraya Dubal. ...Appellant vs. Shri.Mahadeo Dinkar Sankpal. ...Respondent --- Mr.S.G.Page, for Appellant. Mr.Uday Warunjikar, for Respondent. --- CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & R. S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 9th APRIL, 2009 P.C.:- 2 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 16.3.2001 in First Appeal no.1010 of 1999. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appeal and has confirmed an Award passed by MACT. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Shivaji Dubal was the owner of a motorcycle which was being driven by him on 12.10.1992. He was involved in an accident at Village Sakurdi. The accident took place at about 8 p.m. The injured by name Mahadeo Dinkar Sankpal along with one Sanjay was returning after some work at Village Sakurdi. While walking along side Karad-Chiplun Road, a motorcycle which was driven by the present appellant knocked them down. Mr.Mahadeo and one Mr.Sanjay both suffered injuries. As a result of the injuries, Mr.Mahadeo lost the eyesight of his right eye and suffered a fracture. A steel rod was required to 3 be inserted in his left leg. Mahadeo was working as a driver at the time of the accident and claimed to be drawing a salary of Rs.1200/- per month. At the stage of the trial before MACT, the claimant Mahadeo stepped into the witness box. He deposed about the manner in which the accident took place. In his cross examination, it was suggested to him that he had consumed liquor and had fallen on the side of the road. The defence of the appellant however was that he was driving his motorcycle and when he arrived at scene of the occurrence, he found that the victim and Sanjay were lying on the side of the road. It was his case that he applied his breaks and as a result thereof his motorcycle went on to the kaccha road where he fell down and suffered injuries. It was the claimant's case that one advocate by name Sambhaji arrived at the spot immediately after the accident. He was examined as the second witness by the claimant. The Doctor who had issued a medical certificate was examined to prove the injuries suffered by the Respondent. After considering the evidence, by its judgment 4 and order dated 23.6.1997 the present appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,13,000/- as damages to the claimant, together with the proportionate cost. 3. The matter was carried in First appeal and the learned Single Judge of this Court while upholding the liability to pay, reduced the amount payable to the claimant and held that the claimant would be entitled to receive amount of Rs.78,250/-. 4. It was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for appellant that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the evidence and that the record did not indicate any link between the injuries suffered by the injured persons and the alleged accident. It was contended that the defence of the appellant that he had suffered injuries on account of his applying breaks and his further defence is that the injured persons were lying on the road when he arrived at the spot, was not properly 5 appreciated. 5. We have perused the record and heard parties. We find that the impugned order and judgment is passed on proper appreciation of the evidence. The argument that the appellant saw the injured persons lying on the side of the road in an injured condition and the suggestion put to the claimant/injured person in cross examination to the effect that he may have hit by some other vehicle was belied by a contrary suggestion put to the same witness that he had actually fallen down on the side of the road because he had consumed liquor. The omission of the appellant's name in the FIR filed by the advocate has rightly been held to be of no significance in view of the appellant having admitted his presence at the spot and in view of the defence taken. 6. There is no suggestion put to the claimant that he was not injured during the accident in question. There is also no suggestion put to him that he was not admitted in the 6 hospital immediately after the accident. No arguments are advanced on the quantum awarded. In our opinion, therefore, we find no fault with the reasoning and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. In view of the aforesaid order, Civil application nos.190 of 2001 and 252 of 2001 are also disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)