KASTURABAI RAJARAM PATIL AND ORSversusSANJAY VISHWANATH PATIL AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:9032


                                                                        FA-3115-2013
                                                -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 3115 OF 2013

                1.   Smt. Kasturabai Rajaram Patil
                     Age 60 Years, Occupation Household,

                2.   Smt. Vandana Haribhau Patil,
                     Age 39 Years, Occupation Household,

                3.   Ku. Jayashree Haribhau Patil,
                     Age 15 Years, Occupation Education,

                4.   Ku. Rupali Haribhau Patil,
                     Age 13 Years, Occupation Education,

                5.   Ku. Monika Haribhau Patil,
                     Age 10 Years, Occupation Education,

                6.   Chi. Mayur Haribhau Patil
                     Age 8 Years, Occupation Education

                     Applicant No. 2 is the mother and
                     natural guardian of the applicant
                     nos. 3 to 6.

                     All are residing at Purnad, Post Uchande,
                     Taluka Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon.          …     Appellants
                                                                 [Orig. Claimants]
                           versus

                1.   Shri Sanjay Vishwanath Patil
                     Age 34 Years, Occupation Agriculture,
                     R/o Tahsil Road, Muktanganghat,
                     Muktainagar, District Jalgaon.

                2.   Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
                     Hall No. ‘G’ and ‘H’ Central Phule Market,
                     Jalgaon.                                   … Respondents
                                                 …..
                        Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for the Appellants.
                          Mr. R. F. Totala, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                                  .....
                                                          FA-3115-2013
                                 -2-

                        CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                        Reserved on        : 26.02.2026
                        Pronounced on      : 04.03.2026

ORDER :


1.    Original claimants have preferred instant appeal, primarily

getting dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by

learned Member, M.A.C.T., Jalgaon, in claim petition bearing

M.A.C.P. No. 225 of 2010 decided on 14.05.2012.



2.    Brief facts giving rise to the instant First Appeal are that, on

account of death of Rajaram Patil in a road accident dated

29.01.2010, his heirs set up claim under Section 163A of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 [MV Act] to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- on alleged

loss of income earned by deceased from milk business, under various

heads. Owner of the tractor as well as its insurer were impleaded as

party and they contested the claim petition by filing Exhibits 12 and

17 respectively. After appreciating the contentions, and taking into

account the claim to be filed by invoking Section 163A of the MV Act,

learned Tribunal granted Rs.3,67,00/- compensation and directed

both opponents to jointly and severely pay the same with 7.5%

interest per annum.
                                                            FA-3115-2013
                                   -3-

3.    Feeling aggrieved by the above, instant appeal has been

preferred, and the fundamental ground put forth by learned counsel

for the appellants is that compensation is awarded under Section

163A of MV Act. That, in fact it ought to have been granted by

considering the claim to be under Section 166 of the MV Act. Learned

counsel admitted that, petition was filed under Section 163A, but

according to him, it was due to inadvertence, and more particularly

there being plea of rashness and negligence on the part of driver,

tribunal ought to have treated it to be under Section 166 of the MV

Act for just and fair compensation under various heads.



4.    In support of above contention that, even if petition is under

Section 163A, when the pleadings suggest that, plea of rash and

negligent driving has been raised, still tribunal is expected to treat it

as petition under Section 166 of the MV Act and accordingly grant

compensation, he seeks reliance on following judgments :


     1. S. Shakul Hameed v. Tamil Nadu State Transport
        Corporation Limited [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP ©
        No. 7347 of 2024 decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on
        06.01.2026].


     2. Bijaya Bhuyan v. National Insurance Company Ltd and
        Another AIR OnLine 2023 SC 966.
                                                               FA-3115-2013
                                   -4-




5.    Learned counsel for insurance company strongly opposed by

inviting attention of this Court to his pleadings reflected in the say at

Exhibit 12. He also invited attention of this Court to the title of the

claim petition as well as to the specific issue no.2 framed by the

Tribunal, and thereby justified consideration of petition under Section

163A and not under 166 of the MV Act. According to him, the facts in

the rulings relied are distinct and not applicable here.



6.    In the light of above submissions, it is primarily to be seen

whether Tribunal ought to have considered the claim petition under

Section 163A or 166 of the MV Act.



7.    In above backdrop, record is put to scrutiny. Apparently and

admittedly as pointed out, the original claim petition is by invoking

Section 163A of MV Act. As further pointed out, even in the light of

pleadings raised by the parties, learned tribunal framed issue no.2 on

the count of entitlement for compensation under Section 163A, of

which discussion is made in para 11. Thus, not only claim petition,

but even pleadings are in the direction of claim under Section 163A

and therefore its consideration by the Tribunal under the same cannot

be   faulted   at.   Section   163A      provides   for   consideration   of
                                                           FA-3115-2013
                                  -5-

compensation as per Second Schedule of the MV Act and the same

has been put to use by the tribunal.



8.    Learned counsel for appellants has placed on record above

referred rulings. In the first ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court, i.e. in the

case of S. Shakul Hameed (supra), on the strength of averments

raised in the petition that accident occurred on account of rash and

negligent driving of the bus driver, mere opinion was drawn that

though Section 163A was mentioned in the application, claim seems

to be under Section 166 of MV Act.



9.    Here, as stated above, the claim petition is primarily by

invoking Section 163A and mere passing reference has been made in

the memo that, ahead of tractor bearing no. MH 19/C 3167 with

trolley, some buffaloes were coming and therefore tractor driver

applied breaks as a result of which, motorcycle dashed over the

tractor and suffer accident. There are allegations that the driver was

not driving the vehicle by following rules and was driving by showing

ignorance to the traffic on road. Moreover, from the judgment of

tribunal, it is emerging that initially the predecessor of the court had

framed issues under Section 166 of the MV Act, but said issues were

recasted as the claim was under Section 163A, and thereafter
                                                           FA-3115-2013
                                  -6-

discussion has been made in para 11 regarding application of Second

Schedule of MV Act.



10.   Therefore, here, primarily claim petition itself was under

Section 163A and was therefore duly considered under it. Thus, now

it is not open for the claimants to get the claim petition treated under

Section 166 in the appeal. For above reasons, there is no merit in the

appeal. Hence, the following order :

                                ORDER

                 The First Appeal is hereby dismissed.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre