Mrs. Vasanti Satish Joshi And Anr. vs The Thane Municipal Transport Corporation

<div> <b>2026:BHC-AS:16831</b><br /> Sayyed 8-FA.1371.2016.doc<br /> IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY<br /> CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<br /> FIRST APPEAL NO.1371 OF 2016<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>1.</th><th></th><th>Vasanti Satish Joshi</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.</td><td></td><td>Kirti Satish Joshi</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Both are R/at: B-15, 4</th><th>th</th><th>Floor,</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Vandana Co-Operative Hsg. Sy.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Opp. Forest Conservation office</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Dist. Thane (W) – 400 602</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>...Appellants</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>(Original claimants)</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Versus</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>The Thane Municipal Transport</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Corporation having office at</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Panchpakhadi Almeda Road Thane (W).</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(New Address – Administrative Bldg.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Road no.16 &amp; 22 Wagle Depo Wagle-Estate</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dist. Thane (W)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>...Respondent</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>(Original Opp. Party)</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> Ms. Varsha Chavan for the Appellants. <br /> Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni for the Respondent.<br /> _____________________________________________________<br /> <br /> CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.<br /> DATE : 8 APRIL 2026<br /> JUDGMENT:<br /> <br /> 1. This appeal is filed by the original claimants, to challenge an<br /> order dated 21 April 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims<br /> Tribunal, Thane (MACT), for enhancement of compensation on various<br /> grounds.<br /> 2. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken for hearing<br /> finally.<br /> 1 of 6<br /><br /> Sayyed 8-FA.1371.2016.doc<br /> 3. On 9 November 2012, Mr. Satish Joshi who was suffering<br /> from parkinson disease and was also partially paralytic, met with an<br /> accident while crossing road near Aradhana Talkies, Naupada, Thane.<br /> Mr. Joshi expired on 16 March 2013. Prior to his death, he was engaged<br /> in the vocation as a priest in a temple. The accident happened at around<br /> 6:50 p.m. He was knocked down by the bus belonging to Thane<br /> Municipal Transport Corporation (TMTC). <br /> 4. The dependents made an application to the MACT for<br /> compensation. MACT vide its order dated 21 April 2016 awarded<br /> compensation of Rs.13,23,000/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum.<br /> Being aggrieved by the said order, the original claimants have preferred<br /> the present appeal. The TMTC has not challenged the order passed by<br /> the MACT, Thane.<br /> 5. I have heard Ms. Chavan, learned counsel for the appellants-<br /> original claimants and Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent-<br /> TMTC.<br /> 6. The first contention of Ms. Chavan is that the income of the<br /> deceased should have been considered at Rs.12,000/- per month,<br /> whereas the Tribunal has considered only Rs.8,000/-. The deceased was<br /> not only engaged as a priest but also was working as a commission<br /> agent. Admittedly, the evidence with respect to the quantum of income<br /> was not led. However, in the evidence, the nature of work which the<br /> deceased was engaged in, has come on record. In my view, in the<br /> absence of any documentary evidence, the prayer made for considering<br /> the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month cannot be<br /> accepted. At the same time, it has come on record that the deceased was<br /> engaged as a priest as well as doing commission agency business. It is<br /> not possible to arrive at a definite sum which can be said to have been<br /> 2 of 6<br /><br /> Sayyed 8-FA.1371.2016.doc<br /> actually earned by the deceased. The Tribunal also has arrived at<br /> Rs.8,000/- on estimate basis. Therefore, in the interest of justice, to<br /> balance the equity Rs.10,000/- can be considered as monthly income<br /> and accordingly the compensation awarded can be re-worked.<br /> 7. The second contention raised by Ms. Chavan is on account of<br /> contributory negligence. The Tribunal in paragraph 18 has given its<br /> reasoning and has attributed 50% negligence to the deceased and 50%<br /> to the driver of the TMTC bus. Admittedly, the deceased was a<br /> parkinson disease patient and was suffering from paralysis. This ailment<br /> makes the movement of a person slow as compared to a normal person.<br /> Also a person suffering from parkinson disease has a tendency of falling<br /> down. In my view, the deceased should have been accompanied by<br /> some person, and more particularly when he had to cross a busy road.<br /> He could have taken the help of a bystander or the general public to<br /> assist him to cross the road. It is also important to note that the spot of<br /> incident was not a place where there are signals. A pedestrian should<br /> try to cross the road only at the signal by following signal rules.<br /> Therefore, to some extent the negligence certainly is attributable to the<br /> deceased. Similarly, the driver of the bus who is observing the person<br /> from a higher height should have realised that a person limping is<br /> making an attempt to cross the road and he should have been more<br /> careful. Though he had applied the brakes but it was too late in the day<br /> to save the deceased. Therefore, to some extent it cannot be ruled out<br /> that the driver was also not responsible. In such cases, the attribution<br /> cannot be made with exact precision but an estimate has to be made on<br /> the guesswork by recasting the spot of the incident. In my view, if equal<br /> negligence has been attributed to the deceased and the driver by the<br /> Trial Court of first instance, there cannot be a case made out for<br /> perversity for this Court to interfere in the estimate made. Therefore,<br /> 3 of 6<br /><br /> Sayyed 8-FA.1371.2016.doc<br /> the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is confirmed.<br /> 8. Ms. Chavan, learned counsel for the appellants has also<br /> prayed that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards<br /> pain and suffering of the dependents since the accident happened in<br /> November 2012 and the death occurred in March 2013. For a period of<br /> 4 months, the dependents had to undergo severe pain and suffering<br /> which this Court cannot ignore. However, such mental pain can never<br /> be converted into monetary terms. Therefore, in the interest of justice,<br /> Rs.50,000/- is to be awarded under this head to the original claimants.<br /> 9. The revised compensation based on the present order works<br /> out to Rs.15,15,000/-. The original claim awarded by the Tribunal is<br /> Rs.13,23,000/-. Therefore, the compensation is enhanced by<br /> Rs.1,92,000/-. The above amount including the enhanced amount<br /> should be remitted to the original claimants alongwith interest. <br /> 10. Before parting the Court deems it fit to express its views on<br /> this issue which affects the society at large. The pedestrian of this<br /> country should be careful in following the rules and regulations. It is<br /> generally observed that the people cross the road ignoring the signals,<br /> which results into accidental death or injury. It is high time that we as a<br /> responsible citizen, follow the rules and regulations while crossing the<br /> road and by following signals. Merely because, there are no vehicles<br /> coming from either side, people should not cross the road, when the<br /> signals clearly show that they are not supposed to cross the road. <br /> 11. It is also important to note that the vehicles also should not<br /> break the signals, though such tendency of breaking the signals has<br /> come down but still and more particularly people driving two wheeler<br /> do not follow the signal rules and regulations and at times this has<br /> 4 of 6<br /><br /> Sayyed 8-FA.1371.2016.doc<br /> resulted into death and injury of not only the persons driving two<br /> wheeler but also other innocent people. The traffic police, though doing<br /> commendable job, should take strict action against the people driving<br /> two wheeler and violating the signal rules. <br /> 12. In my view, it is high time that the people of this country<br /> inculcate within themselves the civic sense which we all have to follow<br /> without anyone compelling us to follow. On this point, we should learn<br /> from the developed countries how the people driving the vehicle and<br /> also how people crossing the road behave in these countries. Even we as<br /> an Indian, when we travel abroad we follow the rules and regulations of<br /> the foreign country while crossing and driving. I do not see any reason<br /> why we should not follow the rules and regulations of our country<br /> while we return and are staying in India. There cannot be any<br /> justification for not following the same. <br /> 13. At times, it is observed that the elders and the parents violate<br /> these rules while driving and crossing and when they are accompanied<br /> by children, these children who are the future of this country observe<br /> the behaviour of their parents and elders and follow and adopt the<br /> same illegalities. Therefore, it is the moral duty and obligation of the<br /> elders and the parents to follow rules and regulations while driving and<br /> crossing so that the children learn these basic civic sense from their<br /> parents of following rules and regulations rather than, learning how to<br /> violate the rules and regulations. It is rightly said children adopt quickly<br /> what they observe. <br /> 14. With the above views, I bring an end to this matter with the<br /> hope that progress is made by the citizens of this country on this issue<br /> by inculcating within themselves the civic sense of following rules and<br /> regulations while driving and crossing the road, by observing that rights<br /> 5 of 6<br /><br /> Sayyed 8-FA.1371.2016.doc<br /> and duties are two sides of same coin; exercise of one must not lead to<br /> the neglect of other. <br /> 15. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. <br /> 16. A copy of this order to be sent to the concerned top officials of<br /> the Regional Transport Office. <br /> [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]<br /> Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali<br /> Designation: PA To Honourable Judge<br /> Date: 09/04/2026 11:19:26<br /> 6 of 6</div>