Thane: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Thane has rejected the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation’s (MSRTC) claim of Rs 10 lakh, which it had sought in connection with an accident involving its own State Transport (ST) bus that occurred in 2014.
The corporation had claimed the amount on the grounds that the accident had damaged its brand-new bus. However, the tribunal rejected the claim, stating that the Corporation had failed to provide evidence proving that the bus was new, its purchase cost, or that it was on its maiden run.
Nevertheless, based on the evidence presented, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs 4 lakh to the Corporation.
“The claimant Corporation has claimed Rs 10 lakh towards damage to the ST bus. But the Corporation has not produced a valuation report of the bus at the time of its registration or at the time of the accident. Even the Corporation has not proved the date on which the said bus ran for the first time on the road. As per the evidence led by the claimant, the ST bus was purchased in 2008. But there is no evidence to show that the price of the ST bus was Rs 20 lakh. Taking into consideration the evidence of witnesses and documents on record, it reveals that the claim of the Corporation is excessive,” the tribunal held.
The ST bus was plying on the Kalyan–Nagar State Highway through the Malshej Ghat in Murbad on January 2, 2014, when it collided with a motor truck. The MSRTC alleged that the truck was being driven at a high, excessive, and uncontrollable speed on the wrong side of the road, causing significant damage to the bus. The bus was deemed “completely damaged and scrapped,” rendering it unfit for use in transporting passengers.
However, the insurer, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., contested the claim, stating that the MSRTC had failed to submit a survey report and an estimate of the damages. The insurer also argued that the police report indicated the bus driver was speeding and had lost control, thereby disclaiming liability.
After reviewing the evidence, including the spot panchanama, the tribunal concluded that both drivers were negligent. The truck driver was held 75% negligent, while the bus driver’s negligence was assessed at 25%.
