Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Gauri Purshottam Puri And Ors.

CNR No : HCBM010142292006

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
First Appeal No. 2361 of 2006
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation
At Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg,
Bellasis Road, Bombay Central,
Bombay-400 008. … Appellants
V/s.
1. Smt. Gaitri Purshottam Puri
Widow aged 38 years.
2. Vishal Purshottam Puri
Son aged 18 years.
3. Kum. Mamta Purshottam Puri
minor daughter aged 16 years,
by her mother and natural guardian
and next friend
Smt. Gaitri Purshottam Puri
4. Smt. Navanand Hasanad Puri
Mother aged 79 years (deleted)
all r/at Lilly Villa,
th
Ground Floor, 12 Road, Chembur,
Bombay 400 071. … Respondents.
Mr. Amit Gala i/b. Ms. P.M. Advocate for the Appellants
Bhansali
Digitally
signed by
LATA SUNIL
PANJWANI
Date:
2026.10.27
14:04:47
+0530
LATA
SUNIL
PANJWANI
Ms. Ketki Gokhale i/b. Advocate for the Respondents.
A.M.Gokhale
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 2
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J
nd
RESERVED ON : 2 September 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 27 October 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Bhansali for M.S.R.T.C. and Ms.
Gokhale, learned Advocate for the Respondents-Claimants.
2. The claimants are the legal representatives of Purshottam Puri
who was the practicing Advocate. He along with one Rasik Keshav
Talpade were sitting on backside of the car bearing No.MFH-1197.
It was driven by one Naresh Rawat. One Narayan Wasan was sitting
on a cleaner seat. All 4 were going to Uran for Lions Club programe.
Apart from Advocacy profession by way of social service the deceased
Purushottam was working in Lion Club. He was having income
from profession so also from other sources.
th
3. The accident took place on 4 September 1992 at about 8.00
p.m. It was on a road on Mumbai-Pune State Highway. It was in
between the Village Borpade and Village Kopra. There was a road
divider. Their car was proceeding towards the Uran from a lane
which is assigned to them whereas at the same time one M.S.R.T.C.
bus bearing MH-20/A-4724 was proceeding towards Mumbai. It
was driven by one Masooq Laxman Bargude. It was coming from
opposite direction. The bus driver by crossing the divider had given
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 3
dashed to a car proceeding in lane assigned for going to Uran.
4. In that incident the Purshottam and said Talpade have died on
the spot. That is why claim was filed by LRs of deceased-Purshottam.
According to them it was not the fault of the car driver but it was the
100% fault of the bus driver. It is further submitted that even if
there is a fault of the car driver, the deceased Purshottam cannot be
blamed for the same and it is a case of composite negligence.
5. During evidence on behalf of the Claimants 4 witnesses were
examined. They are as follows:
(i) Vishal Puri, Son of the deceased
(ii) Gayatri P. Puri, wife of the deceased.
Both are not eye witnesses but they are on the point of income
of the deceased.
(iii) Harishchandra R. Gupte. He is Chartered Accountant of
the deceased.
(iv) Narayan Rawat who is driver of the car.
6. M.S.R.T.C. by filing written-statement have denied the
allegation made in the claim petition. They have denied the
negligence on the part of their driver. They have pleaded that when
the driver was coming from Pune side, one motorcycle was moving
ahead of the S.T. bus. The driver applied the brakes instantly and as
a result S.T. driver was required to apply the brakes and by way of
natural action the S.T. driver was required to take a turn and it
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 4
overtook the road divider and that is how S.T. bus hit the car coming
from opposite direction. When the S.T. driver gave evidence, he has
stated one additional fact. When he applied the brakes, one jeep car
was coming from a Bombay side and it has slipped and dashed his
S.T. bus. The height of road divider was 4 inches. He want to suggest
that this jeep car is nothing but the car in which the deceased was
traveling. According to him the accident has not taken place because
of his mistake.
7. On the point of income, one Ramesh Pai, Income-tax
Inspector and Ajit Shivaji Gaikwad, Divisional Traffic Officer of
M.S.R.T.C. was examined.
Evidence
8. The widow and son of the deceased who have entered into
witness box were not traveling in the car. Whatever they have stated
is on the basis of information they have gathered from other sources.
During their evidence the following police papers were tendered in
evidence:
th
(i) FIR dated 4 September 1992 lodged by PSI Rao of
Kalamboli police station who lodged the FIR on the basis
of enquiry he has conducted with the witnesses and carried
out the panchnamas. He also enquired with other
occupants of the car who are Naresh Rawat, Naryan Wasan.
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 5
(ii) A copy of spot panchnama is produced so also the inquest
panchnama.
(iii) The copy of postmortem report was produced.
(iv) Certain photographs showing the condition of the bus and
car and the road divider were also produced.
9. So the Tribunal was having the version given by the claimants
and evidence of the S.T. driver. There is evidence of Naresh Rawat
who was driving the car. He is witness to the accident. He has
explained how the accident has taken place. He has explained how
he was driving the car in a moderate speed and how the S.T. bus
coming from the opposite direction drove the bus at high speed. The
S.T. bus after crossing the road divider has hit his car and went ahead
and stopped near the culvert. Even the S.T. bus was hanging on the
culvert itself shows the speed of the S.T. bus. During his cross
examination the theory of the motorcycle moving ahead of the bus
was put to him, but he had not seen any motorcycle ahead of the S.T.
bus
10. Tribunal was having the police papers and certain
photographs. It will be material to see the findings given by the
Tribunal on the aspect of negligence. The Tribunal has assessed the
correctness of the theory put up by the S.T. driver. It is relating to
applying the brakes by the motorcycle driver. Initially, the motorcycle
was behind the bus. However, it overtook the S.T. bus and without
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 6
giving a signal it went ahead. The location of the motorcycle is also
explained. One wheel of the motorcycle was on a kaccha road and
other wheel was on a Tar road. The Tribunal opined that the bus
driver was in a high uncontrollable speed and that is why it has not
stopped after applying the brake but it jumped the road divider and
went on other side of the road and damaged the car.
11. The Tribunal further opined that the bus driver said that his
bus went to other side of the divider because of the dash with the
jeep but at the same time accordingly it is no body’s case that the jeep
had crossed the road divider so the witness was not telling the whole
truth. Tribunal opined that motorcycle was not the cause of the
accident. Tribunal applied the principle of Res Ispa loquitur . The
Tribunal opined that the accident took place due to sole negligence
of the bus driver.
12. Even if we presume that the motorcycle was ahead of bus and
applied the brake, the question is how the S.T. driver has crossed his
side and overtook the road divider and came on a way which is kept
for the vehicles coming from the opposite direction. The S.T. driver
might have taken a right turn but the issue is if he could have been in
a moderate speed then he could have avoided the accident and not
overtook the road divider. Not only he overtook the road divider but
gave a dash to the car coming from opposite direction.
13. When we have seen the photographs of the car and
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 7
description given in spot panchnama, we can ascertain the extent of
damage caused to the car. The impact was so forceful that it has
damaged the front driver side portion of the car. This indicates that
the driver of S.T. has not driven the bus in a moderate speed and in
fact he has driven in a excessive speed so that it was beyond his
control when he applied the brakes.
14. I find no error in the findings given by the Tribunal about the
sole negligence of S.T. driver. In fact Ms. Gokhale relied upon the
observations in case of Nishant Singh v/s. Oriental Insurance
1
Company . There is a reference of Regulation 23 of the Rules of the
Road Regulations 1989. It talks about distance from vehicles in front.

“23. Distance from vehicles in front.-The driver of a
motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall
keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to
avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly
slow down or stop.”
15. The expression sufficient distance is not defined in the
regulations. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is a safe distance of
atleast 2 to 3 seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collusion and to
allow the following driver time to respond. It cannot be said that the
S.T. driver drove the S.T. bus by maintaining a sufficient distance.
Hence, I find not fault in the findings recorded by the Tribunal on
the point of negligence.
1 2018 AIRSC 2118
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 8
Income
16. Now the issue is whether the income decided by the Tribunal
is proper and whether the quantum of compensation is proper. This
Court is verifying the correctness of these findings because the
claimants are asking for enhancement of the compensation. It will be
material to consider the evidence on the point of income. Even the
M.S.R.T.C. have examined two witnesses on the point of income.
Details of witnesses are as follows:
i) Witness No.1-Vishal Puri, son of the deceased was
examined
ii) From the evidence of witness No.2-wife we can gather
some information about the income of the deceased.
iii) Harishchandra Gupta is a C.A. who used to submit income
tax return for the deceased.
iv) As against this the M.S.R.T.C. have made an attempt to
summon the income tax officer-Ramesh Purushottam Pai.
He was summoned to produce the income tax papers of the
deceased pertaining to the year 1988-89 and 1992-93 as
well as Balance sheet. He could not brought those papers
as they were not traceable. His evidence is of no use to
M.S.R.T.C..
v) They have also examined one Ajit Shivaji Gaikwad. He was
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 9
working as Divisional Traffic Officer in M.S.R.T.C. He has
produced copy of a letter received by them sent by
Advocate Shri Pawar for the Claimants. It is accompanied
by certain papers. They are pertaining to the assessment
years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92.
17. On the basis of above evidence let us find out the amount of
income concluded by the Tribunal.
18. So far as occupation of deceased-Purushottam Puri is not in
dispute. He was an Advocate practicing in M.A.C.T. Mumbai,
Workmens’ Compensation Court, Alibag Court and Thane Court.
He was having a office at Flora Fountain, Mumbai on ownership
basis. He was staying at Chembur along with his family. It is a
proved fact that the deceased was member of a Lions Club.
19. There is reference of income tax acknowledgment for the 4
assessment years. They are for assessment year 1989-90, 1990-91,
th
1991-92 and 1992-93. The date of accident is 4 September 1992.
According to Ms. Gokhale even the acknowledgment submitted for
assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93 can be considered because it
pertain to the period when the deceased was alive. Her contention is
merely because the acknowledgment are submitted after the death of
deceased, such acknowledgment cannot be overlooked. She places
reliance on following judgments:
2
1) Sayar and others v/s. Ramkaran and others
2 Civil Appeal No.13912/2025
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 10
2) Nidhi Bhargava and others v/s. National Insurance Company
3
Ltd. And others.
20. According to her even the amount deducted on depreciation
and the interest paid on loan amount is to be included in the income
of the deceased. Whereas Mr. Gala for M.S.R.T.C. relied upon
observations in case of Malarvizhi and others v/s. United India
4
Insurance Company Ltd. and anr . wherein depreciation was not
considered while computing annual income in a claim before the
Tribunal. Because it is considered as a deduction allowed for decline
in real value of tangible or intangible assets over its useful life.
21. The details of these acknowledgments are as follows:
F. Y. Income from profession Rs. 27,729/-
1989-1990 (From income and
expenditure account)
Income from other sources Rs. 11,228/-
Income from capital gain Rs. 11,503/-
Depreciation Rs. 50, 628/-
(From income and
expenditure account)
Not considered.
Interest on Loan Nil
TOTAL Rs.50,460/-
F. Y. Income from profession Rs. 53,289/-
1990-1991 (from Profit and Loss
3 2025 All SCR 1857
4 (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 228
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 11
Account)
Income from other sources Rs. 13,704/-
Depreciation Rs. 41,375/-
(from income and
expenditure account)
Not considered.
Interest on Loan Nil
TOTAL Rs.66,993/-
F. Y. Income from profession Rs. 71,330/-
1991-1992 (from Profit and Loss
Account)
Income from other sources Rs. 31,523/-
Depreciation Rs. 58,835/-
(from Profit and Loss
Account)
Not considered.
Interest on Loan Rs. 39,086/-
(from Profit and Loss
Account)

TOTAL
Rs.1,02,853/-
+ Rs. 39,086/-
= Rs. 1,41,939/-

F. Y. Income from profession Rs. 77,620/-
1992-1993 (from Profit and Loss
Account)
Income from other sources Rs. 14,465/-
Depreciation Rs. 46,342/-
(from Profit and Loss
Account)
Not considered.
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 12
Interest on Loan Rs. 33,640/-
(from Profit and Loss
Account)
TOTAL Rs.92,085/-
+Rs.33,640/-
= Rs. 1,25,725/-
22. It is true the acknowledgment for the assessment year 1991-92
th
and 1992-93 is dated 24 February 1993 i.e. after the death of the
th
deceased on 4 September 1992 whereas other two
acknowledgments pertain to the period earlier to the death of the
deceased. So the acknowledgment for 1991-92 and 1992-93 are
admittedly filed after the date of accident. This is admitted by
witness Gupta, Chartered Accountant for the deceased.
23. On the basis of the observations in above judgments the
acknowledgment of the income tax deposit for the assessment year
submitted after the death can be considered after conducting judicial
scrutiny. No doubt the assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93 also
covers the period when the assessee/deceased was alive.
24. It is true Income tax officer Ramesh Pai could not produce the
record pertaining to assessment year 1988-89 and 1992-93.
However, the record produced by witness Ajit Gaikwad for
M.S.R.T.C., even though not the original, can be considered for two
reasons; first they were handed over on behalf of claimants to
M.S.R.T.C. and M.S.R.T.C. wants to rely upon them. At the same
time, the income-tax documents for the assessment year 1988-89
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 13
and 1989-90 cannot be discarded as contended by Ms. Gokhale.
25. I am inclined to consider the deduction on account of interest
on car loan in the income of the deceased but not the depreciation.
Because depreciation is not towards the payment the assessee is
required to make but it is by way of fiction that the value of the asset
is depreciated. As against this the assessee is required to pay certain
amount towards the interest on loan availed. For income-tax
calculation it is considered as a deduction but for the purpose of
considering the income of the deceased in compensation claim it can
certainly be added in the income of the deceased.
26. Ms. Gokhale also relied upon the observations in case of
Rashmirekha Tripathy and others v/s. The Branch Manager (Legal
5
Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and others .
In case of self employed individuals when there are more than one
returns, there can be average of past two to three years.
27. We will find that the income for assessment year for which
there is acknowledgment obtained after the death of the deceased has
substantially increased as compared to the income for the earlier two
periods. It is the contention of Ms. Gokhale that the income of the
Advocate increases depending upon the number of years of practice
he has put in. If above figures are considered the monthly income of
the deceased will be as follows:
5 2026 SCC Online SC 1256
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 14
Assessment
Yearly Income Monthly Income
Year
1989-90 50,460/- 4205
1990-91 66,990/- 5582
1991-92 1,41,939/- 11,828/-
1992-93 1,25,725/- 10,477/-
28. On this background, if the findings of the Tribunal are
considered, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.10,000/-. I find the assessment done by the Tribunal
is proper. He has neither considered the income for initial two
assessments nor the income for later two assessments. But he has
found out the average. Even though learned Advocate Ms. Gokhale
has taken lot of pains in convincing me that the income considered is
on a lower side. After appreciation of the materials on record , I am
unable to accept her submission. I appreciate her efforts.
29. There are certain heads for which compensation is not granted
by the Tribunal. These heads are recognised by the Supreme Court
in various judgments. Compensation on those heads can certainly be
granted. They are as follows:
Loss of Consortium (48,000x4) Rs. 1,92,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 18,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
TOTAL Rs.2,28,000/-
30. Hence, enhancement is granted only for Rs.2,28,000/-. Hence,
the order:
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45

901 fa 2361.06 final.doc
LSP 15
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Cross objection is partly allowed.
rd
(iii) The award dated 23 March 2005 passed by M.A.C.T,
Mumbai in Application No.1/2000 is modified as below:
The Appellant- M.S.R.T.C. is directed to pay Rs.
2,28,000/- a/w. interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
within 8 weeks to the original claimants/ Respondent No.1
to 4 from the date of filing of petition before Alibag
Tribunal till the date of deposit.
(iv) If required, Claimants to pay Court fee on enhanced
amount of compensation.
(S.M. MODAK, J.)
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 14:13:45
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)