: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.30 OF 1992 Sadashiv Bapu Rupnar .. Appellant Versus Malhari Tatoba Jadhav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P.S. Dani for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The First Appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.176 of 1985. The Tribunal had dismissed the Claim Petition by concluding that the appellant had not proved that he was travelling by a goods truck No.MTL-1440 when he met with the accident. 2. According to the appellant, he was working as a “Coolie” in the Railway Goods Shed in Sangli for about 15 years and was earning approximately : 2 : Rs.30/- to Rs.35/- per day. On 26th May, 1985 he was required to transport one bag of Jawar to his brother-in-law, Govinda, residing in Mumbai. He, therefore, requested the driver of the truck owned by respondent No.2 herein to give him a ride. He loaded the bag of Jawar into the truck bearing No.MTL-1440 which was owned by respondent No.2 herein. He left Sangli on 26th May, 1985 in the aforesaid truck which was driven by respondent No. 1. According to the appellant, respondent No.1 charged him Rs.60/- for giving him a ride by transporting the Jawar bag. It appears that the appellant met with an accident because respondent No.1 suddenly braked while he was driving at the speed of 70 kms. to 80 kms. per hour, in order to avoid an accident. According to the appellant he and other passengers sustained severe injuries in the accident. The appellant was then taken to the Civil Hospital in Sangli and thereafter was admitted to the hospital of one Dr. Dhabu. Thereafter he was treated by Dr. Sharad Kulkarni. The appellant filed a Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. : 3 : 3,76,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as from respondent No.3, the insurer of the vehicle. 3. Evidence was led by the appellant by examining himself as well as three other witnesses. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were both examined before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 led no evidence. 4. The Tribunal on appreciating the evidence led before it has held that the appellant was not involved in the accident and the injuries sustained by him were not due to the accident of the aforesaid truck. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the present First Appeal. 5. With the assistance of Mr. Dani, who appears for the appellant, I have perused the evidence led before the Tribunal. The evidence of the claimant indicates that he was transporting a bag of Jawar to Mumbai for which respondent No.1 had charged him Rs.60/-. He has stated that when the aforesaid truck left the house of respondent No.1, he sat in : 4 : the driver’s cabin alongwith the cleaner of the truck and a lady named Fulabai while respondent No.1 was driving. He has also stated that four other persons boarded the truck after it left Sangli. He has then described the manner in which the accident occurred. He has also indicated the treatment that was administered to him and has stated that after the accident he was initially taken to the hospital whereas the bag of Jawar was kept in the transport office of respondent No.2. His cross-examination does not in any manner contradict his testimony in his examination-in- chief. 6. The appellant has then examined Fulabai who was travelling with him in the driver’s cabin of the truck when the accident occurred. She has stated that both she and the appellant were injured in the accident and that they were taken to Sangli. She has deposed that the appellant was admitted to a dispensary and that she had visited him in that dispensary. : 5 : 7. The appellant has also examined one Parubai who had seen and overheard the appellant speaking with respondent No.1 about the transportation of the bag of Jawar in the truck. 8. The next witness examined by the appellant is his brother-in-law for whom he was transporting the bag of Jawar to Mumbai. He has stated that it was the usual practice that food-grains would be transported to him to Mumbai by his father who owned several acres of land as that was the crop grown on the land. 9. Thereafter the appellant examined the Doctor who treated him in Sangli Nursing Home. He has stated that one Shivaji Vishnu Patil brought the appellant to his hospital in an injured condition on 26th May, 1985. 10. The last witness examined on behalf of the appellant is his co-workman. He has stated that he visited the appellant in the hospital of Dr. Dhabu i.e. witness No.5 for the appellant. : 6 : 11. On the other hand, respondent Nos.1 and 2 examined themselves. Respondent No.1 has denied that the appellant was travelling in his truck either alone or with his gunny bag. Respondent No.2 has stated that on the day the truck met with an accident, no other goods except cotton bales were loaded in the truck. He has agreed that the driver was injured in the accident which occurred on 26th May, 1985. 12. Thus, the appellant, in my opinion, has proved that he was travelling in the ill-fated truck on the date of the accident. He has examined witnesses who have corroborated his testimony, including a co-passenger, Fulabai. She has stated in her deposition that she was travelling in the truck alongwith the appellant and that after they met with the accident they were removed from the place of the accident to Sangli. She has deposed that she visited the appellant in the hospital. Her testimony has not been shattered in her cross- examination. : 7 : 13. In my opinion, therefore, the appellant has proved that he was travelling in the truck when it met with the accident on 26th May, 1985. The Tribunal has committed an error by not accepting the evidence led on behalf of the appellant. There is evidence to indicate that the appellant was travelling with a bag of Jawar in the truck when it met with the accident. The witnesses examined by the appellant have stated that bag of Jawar was kept in the transport office of respondent No.2 after the accident, while the appellant was removed to the hospital. All these factors, in my opinion, indicate that there was an accident in which the appellant was involved. The injuries sustained by him were on account of that accident. The only reason for the Tribunal to discard the evidence led by the appellant is that the appellant had not examined any other co-passengers besides Fulabai. In my opinion, since Fulabai’s evidence is sufficient to corroborate the evidence of the appellant, there was no need for him to examine any other witness. The appellant has proved that he was : 8 : travelling in the truck as the owner of the goods which were being transported in the truck. Therefore, the respondents would be jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. 14. The Award of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal only to decide the issue regarding the quantum of compensation which would be payable to the appellant. The Tribunal is directed to complete this enquiry within a period of six months from today. 15. The First Appeal is allowed. .......