Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has questioned why Indians, who follow traffic rules and regulations when travelling abroad, fail to adhere to similar norms in their own country, while disposing of a motor accident compensation appeal arising from the death of a priest suffering from Parkinson’s disease, who was knocked down by a Thane Municipal Transport Corporation (TMTC) bus.
Justice Jitendra Jain delivered the judgment in First Appeal No. 1371 of 2016, filed by Vasanti Satish Joshi and Kirti Satish Joshi against the Thane Municipal Transport Corporation. On 9 November 2012, Mr. Satish Joshi, who was suffering from Parkinson’s disease and was also partially paralytic, met with an accident while crossing the road near Aradhana Talkies, Naupada, Thane. He was knocked down by a TMTC bus at around 6:50 p.m. and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 16 March 2013. Prior to his death, he was engaged as a temple priest and in commission agency business.
The dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Thane. By its order dated 21 April 2016, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 13,23,000/- along with interest at 8% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the original claimants filed the present appeal before the High Court. The TMTC did not challenge the Tribunal’s order.
Before the High Court, the appellants’ counsel, Ms. Varsha Chavan, raised three contentions: first, that the income of the deceased should have been considered at Rs. 12,000/- per month as against Rs. 8,000/- taken by the Tribunal; second, that the 50% contributory negligence attributed to the deceased was excessive; and third, that Rs. 1,00,000/- should have been granted towards pain and suffering endured during the four months between the accident and his death.
On the question of income, the Court held that in the absence of documentary evidence, the prayer to consider income at Rs. 12,000/- per month could not be accepted. However, noting that the deceased was engaged both as a priest and as a commission agent, the Court found that the Rs. 8,000/- assessed by the Tribunal was also an estimate. In the interest of justice and to balance equity, the Court revised the monthly income to Rs. 10,000/-.
On the issue of contributory negligence, the Court noted that the deceased, being a Parkinson’s disease patient with partial paralysis, had a slower gait and a tendency to fall. The Court observed that he should have been accompanied by someone, especially when crossing a busy road, and could have sought assistance from a bystander. It was also noted that the spot of the incident was not a signal-controlled crossing, and pedestrians ought to cross roads at designated signals. At the same time, the Court held that the bus driver, being in a higher driving position, should have noticed the limping pedestrian and exercised greater caution. Concluding that both parties bore equal responsibility, and finding no perversity in the Tribunal’s findings, the High Court confirmed the 50% contributory negligence attributed to the deceased.
On the claim for pain and suffering, the Court acknowledged that the deceased endured significant pain and suffering for approximately four months between the accident and his death. While noting that such suffering cannot be fully quantified in monetary terms, the Court awarded Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
The revised total compensation was recalculated at Rs. 15,15,000/-, as against Rs. 13,23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, reflecting an enhancement of Rs. 1,92,000/-. The Court directed that the entire amount, including the enhanced sum, be remitted to the original claimants along with applicable interest.
Before concluding, the Court made broader observations on road safety and civic sense. It noted that pedestrians frequently cross roads in disregard of traffic signals, resulting in accidents. The Court emphasised that vehicles must also refrain from violating traffic signals and observed that while such tendencies have reduced, two-wheeler riders continue to frequently breach signal rules, leading to fatalities and injuries. The Court commended the traffic police for their efforts and urged stricter enforcement against violators.
The Court further remarked that it is high time for citizens in India to voluntarily inculcate civic sense in adhering to road rules, drawing lessons from developed countries. It pointedly questioned why Indians comply with traffic regulations abroad but fail to do so domestically, observing that there can be no justification for such conduct.
The Court also observed that elders and parents who violate traffic rules in the presence of their children set a poor example, as children tend to emulate observed behaviour. It underscored that it is the moral duty and obligation of elders and parents to follow traffic rules while driving and crossing roads, so that children imbibe civic discipline rather than disregard for the law.
The appeal was disposed of in the above terms. The Court also directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the concerned senior officials of the Regional Transport Office.
Case Title: Vasanti Satish Joshi & Anr. vs. The Thane Municipal Transport Corporation (First Appeal No. 1371 of 2016)
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
