1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.3301 OF 2008 (M/s Vishwa Travels, Latur vs. Jogindarsingh s/o Gulzarsingh Kaira and another) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.P.P.Darak & Mr.R.P.Adgaonkar, Counsel for the appellant. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 served. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:19-3-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard. Dismissal of M.A.C.P.No.169/2005, by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, dt.2nd May, 2008, seeking damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of accident and sufferance to the travel Bus bearing Registration No.MH-24/F-5196 is questioned by the claimant. 2. Learned Counsel for the claimant would argue,the learned Judge erred in not accepting that the truck which was already parked 2 at the road was parked in a negligent manner, and it may be a case of contributory negligence as the travel Bus dashed against the said stationary truck. Counsel submits, at no point, it could be said that it was all alone the travel Bus driver who was negligent and dashed against the stationary truck and, hence, the learned Judge has erred in negating the contentions. The reliance placed to the evidence of the Cleaner who also suffered injuries, giving rise to another claim petition being MACP No. 8/2005, in the form of Exh.78, is criticized. 3. Before the learned Judge, evidence/deposition of Balaji Raghunath Kshirsagar, Cleaner of the Travel Bus involved in the accident, was in the form of Exh. 78 wherein said Balaji accepted, he was sitting on the Cleaner's side at the time of accident. He cautiously informed the driver of the vehicle that there was already a stationary truck, the stationary 3 truck could have been visualized from a distance within 500 feet, which was ahead of the Bus. It is accepted that they had noticed the truck at a distance of 500 feet. The lights of the truck were blinking. Considering this scenario, it hardly stimulates to the contention of the claimant that the stationary parking of the truck at the road was the root cause for the accident. Equal care which is expected from the driver of the Travel Bus having been not demonstrated, supported by Panchnama ( Exh.43), evidence of Babarao ( Exh.42) evidence of Police Officer ( Exh.41), does not warrant any interference. First Appeal lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/3301-08fa