NANDA SARJERAO IPPARversusGANPAT BHIGA NAGARE (DESD) LRS.

                       LSP                                 1               2 fa 1441.03.doc


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          First Appeal No. 1441 of 2003

                       Nanda Sarjerao Ippar                        …     Appellants

                             V/s.

                       Ganpat Bhika Nagare
                       (deceased) through LRs
                       Punjaram Ganpat Nagare and others           …     Respondents.


                       Ms. Neha M. Zanje i/b. Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for the Appellant.

                       None for the Respondents.

                                                  CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J

                                                     DATE : 11th August 2026.

                       ORAL JUDGMENT:

                       1.    Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant – owner of the
                       tractor who was opponent No.4 before the Tribunal at Malegaon-
          Digitally

LATA
          signed by
          LATA SUNIL
         PANJWANI
                       Nashik.
SUNIL
PANJWANI Date:
         2026.08.13
          14:19:58
          +0530



                       2.    The claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the
                       deceased - Ganpat Nagare. Though United India Insurance
                       Company is joined as Opponent Nos.3 and 5 (insurer of jeep and
                       insurer of tractor which is owned by opponent No.4), however, the
                       Insurance Company by their reply has clarified before the Tribunal
                       that there is an insurance policy in existence in respect of the jeep in
LSP                                  2               2 fa 1441.03.doc


question, however, the insurance is not in existence in respect of the
tractor on the material date (Para No.5 of the impugned judgment).
The Tribunal has fastened the liability on Respondent No.2 – owner
of the jeep and Respondent No.3 – insurer of the jeep as joint and
several liability to the extent of 75%. The present appellant is liable
to reimburse compensation to the extent of 25%. This part of            the
Award is challenged on behalf of the owner of the tractor.

3.    Though, learned Advocate for the Appellant tried to submit
that client is not in contact with her, this Court cannot adjourn the
matter as the appeal is pending since 2003. Hence, she was asked to
argue the matter. She did argued the matter to her level best,however,
she could not convince the Court as to how the apportionment of
liability is incorrect. She has read the material findings from the
Award. However, it could not satisfy the conscious of the Court so as
to exonerate the present appellant from the financial liability.

4.    The deceased - Bhimabai Nagare was a passenger in a jeep
owned by opponent No.1. She was traveling on 30th July 1993 and
the accident took place at 10.30 a.m. near Kombda Fata on
Nandgaon-Kannad Road. The jeep was proceeding in one direction
and the tractor owned by opponent No.4-appellant came from
opposite direction. Though the witness who is examined by the
claimants was not an eye witness, the necessary documents were filed
before the Tribunal. It consists of the FIR, spot panchnama, P.M.
report. It is important to note that the driver of the tractor by name
LSP                                 3               2 fa 1441.03.doc


Vijay Sangale has entered into witness box. I have gone through his
evidence. He was a witness to the incident. His evidence has got
evidentiary value. This Court has to ascertain whether there was no
liability of the owner of the tractor due to no fault of the driver or
whether the driver of the tractor was also responsible to certain
extent. In his evidence Vijay has explained how he was driving the
tractor on the material day. According to him the jeep came in a
high speed and he was compelled to take the tractor on one side. He
has further deposed that the jeep had taken cut to his trolley. It is
true that the tractor was accompanied by the trolley. According to
him, as a result the jeep gave a dash to a babul tree and two women
were thrown out of the jeep. One of them is the deceased - Bhimabai
Nagare. He further deposed that he along with the jeep driver was
arrested by the police, however, he is not chargesheeted.

5.    He was cross-examined by all the concerned parties. It is
material to note that there is no dispute raised that the tractor was
not involved in the accident. In fact Vijay’s testimony is clear that he
was very much driving the tractor at the relevant time. On this
background when the findings given by the Tribunal in Para No.9
are perused, we can find that Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion of
composite negligence. It is bound to be there because the deceased
was a passenger in a jeep. It is a fact that jeep driver has not entered
into a witness box. While assessing the negligence, the Tribunal has
given a finding that jeep driver was at great speed. That is why the
Tribunal has fastened 75% liability on the owner of the jeep. Once
LSP                                4              2 fa 1441.03.doc


the tractor is involved in the accident, the tractor cannot be
exonerated. The liability fastened on him is only to the extent of
25%.

6.     I do not think that the Tribunal has committed any error in
appreciating the evidence. So no fault can be arrived at with this
finding. The Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence and not
held the driver and owner of the tractor to the fullest extent. The
liability fastened on him to the extent of 25% is on proper
appreciation of evidence. So there is no merit in the appeal and
hence, it is dismissed.

7.     The Appellant is directed to pay the amount as ordered by the
Tribunal.


                                            (S.M. MODAK, J.)