( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ FIRST APPEAL NO.575 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.575 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.575 OF 2009 The United India Insurance Company Ltd. ..Appellants V/s. Smt.Sunita Machhindranath Abadare and Ors. ..Respondents ...... Mr.Rahul Mehta iby KMC Legal Venture for the appellants None for the respondents ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 28th April, 2009 DATED : 28th April, 2009 DATED : 28th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The respondent No.1 Sunita and respondent No.2 Saubai filed application for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act for recovery of damages from the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company i.e. appellants in regard to the accident which had took place on 1st May, 2002. Husband of the respondent No.1 Machhindranath died in the course of the accident. At the time of accident, he was driving a car Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.MH/04/AA/6300. 2. The learned Member, M.A.C.T., Sangli by his judgment and decree dated 21st October, 2008 granted the application and provided for compensation more particularly set out in the operative part of the judgment and decree. Against which the appellants ( 2 ) Insurance Company has filed this appeal before this Court. It was sought to be argued that Machhindranath who was the driver of Tata Sumo was negligent in as much as he left his track and came on to the other track and in the process dashed against the truck and that is how said Machhindranath expired. According to learned advocate Mr.Mehta, Machindranath had contributed to the accident and that learned member has not considered that aspect of the matter. He had also pointed out that police had prosecuted the said Machhindranath and passed on the blame to said Machhindranath. It is to be noted that the driver of the truck coming from the other direction has not been examined. In fact, he was the best witness who could have thrown light as to in what circumstances there was a collision between the truck driven by him and Tata Sumo driven by Machhindranath. Said driver has not been examined. In such a case, it would be difficult to accept the submission of learned advocate Mr.Mehta that Machhindranath was negligent merely because he had changed his track and came on to the other side. It is to be noted that the accident took place on Bombay-Goa Road. If the argument of learned advocate Mr.Mehta that Tata Sumo came on the other side which constituted negligence on the part of Machindranath is to be accepted, it would not be proper particularly when there was no road divider. ( 3 ) Merely because Machhindranath came to the other side by itself is not sufficient to say that he was negligent. In my view, the evidence clearly goes to show that Machhindranath was not negligent in the matter of driving Tata Sumo. The learned member has considered this aspect by appreciating the evidence on record including the panchanama and has rightly arrived at conclusion that the truck driver was negligent. 3. It was argued by learned advocate Mr.Mehta that the income per month at Rs.3,500/- said to be earned by Machhindranath is an exaggerated figure. I am not inclined to accept this argument because Machhindranath was working as a full fledged driver of the Tata Sumo and by any rate, salary of Rs.3,500/- cannot be considered as an exorbitant figure particularly when respondent No.1 Sunita has deposed in examination-in-chief that her husband was working with one Mr.Manoj Chavan, from of Bombay as a driver. According to her, he was also earning Bhatta of Rs.100/- per day as his salary component. In fact, salary of Rs.3,500/- for a driver working in Bombay may in a given case have to be considered as meagre salary. In my view, considering the evidence on record, the learned Member rightly fixed the monthly salary of Rs.3,500/- as the base figure. Of course ( 4 ) the learned member has rightly deducted 1/3rd of Rs.3,500/- as an amount spent for personal expenses. In my view, the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr.Mehta stated aforesaid cannot be accepted. The learned member has considered the matter properly and has rightly arrived at conclusion set out in the impugned judgment. In my view, no interference is required and the appeal is requried to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. . In view of the dismissal of the first appeal, Civil Application No.1777 of 2009 is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)