{"id":218124,"date":"2009-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-13T12:41:43","modified_gmt":"2016-09-13T07:11:43","slug":"whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: K.U. Chandiwal<\/div>\n
                      (1)\n    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n              BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n               F.A. NOS. 4058\/2008, 4059\/2008,\n                         4060\/2008, 4061\/2008,\n                         4062\/2008, 4063\/2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n         Date of decision: 24\/4\/2009\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    For approval   and signature\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n         HON'BLE   MR. JUSTICE   K.U.CHANDIWAL\n\n\n\n\n    1.   Whether the Reporters of Local Papers ]                Yes\/No\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n         may be allowed to see the Judgment    ]\n\n    2.\n\n    3.\n                    \n         To be referred to the Reporter or not ? ]\n\n         Whether Their Lordships wish to      see         ]\n                                                                Yes\/No\n\n                                                                Yes\/No\n         the fair copy of the Judgment ?                  ]\n                   \n    4.   Whether this case involves a substantial]              Yes\/No\n         question of law as to the interpretation]\n         of the Constitution of India, 1950,   or]\n         any order made thereunder ?             ]\n      \n\n\n    5.   Whether it is to be circulated to       the      ]     Yes\/No\n         Civil Judges ?                                   ]\n   \n\n\n\n    6.   Whether the case involves an important           ]     Yes\/No\n         question of law and whether a copy of            ]\n         the Order should be sent to   Bombay,            ]\n         Goa and Nagpur Office ?                          ]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n      (A.G.PARALIKAR)\n     Private Secretary\n    uniplex\/fa4058-08gr\n    uniplex\/\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::\n                       (2)\n\n\n\n\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n              F.A. NOS. 4058\/2008, 4059\/2008,\n                        4060\/2008, 4061\/2008,\n                        4062\/2008, 4063\/2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                      ...\n\n                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 4058 of 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     The Union of India\n     Through the General Manager,\n     South Central Railway,\n     Secunderabad ( A.P.)\n                                      ...APPELLANT\n                                      (Orig.Resp.No.2)\n\n\n\n\n                              \n     VERSUS\n\n     1.\n                   \n              Bharat s\/o Raghoji Kedare, @ Mhaske,\n              Age 37 years, Occu: Labour,\n              r\/o Avalgaon, Tq. Gangakhed,\n              Dist. Parbhani.\n                  \n     2.       Sk.Elias s\/o Sk. Burhan,\n              Age: Major, Occu. Business,\n              and owner of auto rickshaw\n              No.MH-26\/6877 r\/o Near Degloor\n              Naka, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.\n      \n\n\n                                      ...RESPONDENTS\n   \n\n\n\n                                (Resp.No.1 is orig.claimants\n                                 and Resp. No.2 is orig.\n                                 resp. No.1)\n                      ...\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mr. M.N.Nawandar, Advocate, for the appellant.\n     Mr. H.I.Pathan, Advocate, for respondent no.2.\n\n                      ...\n\n                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 4059 of 2008\n\n\n\n\n\n     The Union of India\n     Through the General Manager,\n     South Central Railway,\n     Secunderabad ( A.P.)\n                                     ...APPELLANT\n                                     (Orig.Resp.No.2)\n     VERSUS\n\n     1.       Girjabai w\/o Munjaji Lokhande,\n              Age: 57 years, Occu: Household & Labour,\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::\n                       (3)\n              r\/o Dharvati Tanda, Tq. Parli,\n              Dist. Beed.\n\n\n     2.       Sk.Elias s\/o Sk. Burhan,\n              Age: Major, Occu. Business,\n              and owner of auto rickshaw\n              No.MH-26\/6877 r\/o Near Degloor\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n              Naka, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.\n\n                                      ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                                (Resp.No.1 is orig.claimants\n                                 and Resp. No.2 is orig.\n                                 resp. No.1)\n                      ...\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     Mr. M.N.Nawandar, Advocate, for the appellant.\n     Mr. K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate, for respondent no.1.\n     Mr. H.I.Pathan, Advocate, for respondent no.2.\n\n                      ...\n\n\n\n\n                              \n                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 4060 of 2008\n                   \n     The Union of India\n     Through the General Manager,\n     South Central Railway,\n     Secunderabad ( A.P.)\n                  \n                                       ...APPELLANT\n                                       (Orig.Resp.No.2)\n     VERSUS\n\n     1.       Bharat s\/o Shriram Pawar,\n              Age: Major, Occu: Labour.\n      \n\n\n     2.       Ranjit s\/o Shriram Pawar,\n   \n\n\n\n              Age 23 years, occu: Nil.\n\n     3.       Avinash s\/o Shriram   Pawar,\n              Age 17 years, minor   u\/g of\n              real brother Bharat   Shivram Pawar,\n\n\n\n\n\n              R\/o Dhravati Tanda,   Tq. Parli,\n              Dist. Beed.\n\n     4.       Sk.Elias s\/o Sk. Burhan,\n              Age: Major, Occu. Business,\n              and owner of auto rickshaw\n              No.MH-26\/6877 r\/o Near Degloor\n\n\n\n\n\n              Naka, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS\n                               (Resp.No.1 to 3 are\n                                orig.claimants\n                                and Resp. No.4 is orig.\n                                resp. No.1)\n                     ...\n\n     Mr. M.N.Nawandar, Advocate, for the appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::\n                      (4)\n     Mr. H.I.Pathan, Advocate, for respondent no.4.\n\n     Respondent nos. 1 to 3 served.\n\n                      ...\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 4061 of 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     The Union of India\n     Through the General Manager,\n     South Central Railway,\n     Secunderabad ( A.P.)\n                                         ...APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                                         (Orig.Resp.No.2)\n     VERSUS\n\n     1.       Girjabai w\/o Munjaji Lokhande,\n              Age: 57 years, Occu: Household & Labour,\n              r\/o Dharvati Tanda, Tq. Parli,\n\n\n\n\n                              \n              Dist. Beed.\n\n     2.\n                   \n              Sk.Elias s\/o Sk. Burhan,\n              Age: Major, Occu. Business,\n              and owner of auto rickshaw\n              No.MH-26\/6877 r\/o Near Degloor\n                  \n              Naka, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.\n\n                                      ...RESPONDENTS\n                                (Resp.No.1 is orig.claimants\n                                 and Resp. No.2 is orig.\n                                 resp. No.1)\n      \n\n\n                      ...\n   \n\n\n\n     Mr. M.N.Nawandar, Advocate, for the appellant.\n     Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate, for respondent no.1.\n     Mr. H.I.Pathan, Advocate, for respondent no.2.\n\n                      ...\n\n\n\n\n\n                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 4062 of 2008\n\n\n     The Union of India\n     Through the General Manager,\n     South Central Railway,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Secunderabad ( A.P.)\n                                      ...APPELLANT\n                                      (Orig.Resp.No.2)\n     VERSUS\n\n     1.       Bharat s\/o Raghoji Kedare, @ Mhaske,\n              Age 37 years, Occu: Labour,\n              r\/o Avalgaon, Tq. Gangakhed,\n              Dist. Parbhani.\n\n     2.       Sk.Elias s\/o Sk. Burhan,\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::\n                       (5)\n              Age: Major, Occu. Business,\n              and owner of auto rickshaw\n              No.MH-26\/6877 r\/o Near Degloor\n              Naka, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.\n\n                                      ...RESPONDENTS\n                                (Resp.No.1 is orig.claimants\n                                 and Resp. No.2 is orig.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                                 resp. No.1)\n                      ...\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     Mr. M.N.Nawandar, Advocate, for the appellant.\n     Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate, for respondent no.1.\n     Mr. H.I.Pathan, Advocate, for respondent no.2.\n\n                      ...\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 4063 of 2008\n\n\n     The Union of India\n     Through the General Manager,\n\n\n\n\n                              \n     South Central Railway,\n     Secunderabad ( A.P.)\n\n\n     VERSUS\n                    ig                   ...APPELLANT\n                                         (Orig.Resp.No.2)\n                  \n     1.       Tulsabai w\/o Vishwanath Mogle,\n              Age: 47 years, Occu: Household & Labour,\n              r\/o Vaijwadi, Tq. Parli,\n              Dist. Beed.\n\n     2.       Sk.Elias s\/o Sk. Burhan,\n      \n\n\n              Age: Major, Occu. Business,\n              and owner of auto rickshaw\n   \n\n\n\n              No.MH-26\/6877 r\/o Near Degloor\n              Naka, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.\n\n                                      ...RESPONDENTS\n                                (Resp.No.1 is orig.claimants\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 and Resp. No.2 is orig.\n                                 resp. No.1)\n                     ...\n\n     Mr. M.N.Nawandar, Advocate, for the appellant.\n     Mr. K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate, for respondent no.1.\n     Mr. H.I.Pathan, Advocate, for respondent no.2.\n\n\n\n\n\n                     ...\n\n                  CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.\n                  Date: 24\/4\/2009\n                             ...\n\n     JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     1.              The    appellant,    aggrieved             by      the<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                              (6)<\/span>
\n     judgment         and    award       dt.7.4.2006        passed           by     the<\/p>\n
     Additional District Judge and Ex Officio Member, Motor<\/p>\n
     Accident        Claims       Tribunal,   Nanded         who,       by     common<\/p>\n
     judgment,        decided M.A.C.P.        Nos.      385, 421, 422, 485,<\/p>\n
     486 and 549 all of 2000, awarding part compensation to<\/p>\n
     the     respective        claimants,     holding the            appellant          –\n<\/p>\n
     Union     of India jointly and severally liable, with the<\/p>\n
     Rickshaw Driver\/owner.\n<\/p>\n
     2.                      On    18.11.2008,    after            hearing          the<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the appellant, this Court directed notices<\/p>\n
     before     admission returnable on 16.12.2008, indicating<\/p>\n
     that<\/p>\n
     admission
\n              the<\/p>\n
                      stage.\n<\/p>\n
                      appeals       are likely to be         disposed<\/p>\n
                                    Record and proceedings was
\n                                                                               of<\/p>\n
                                                                               called
\n                                                                                      at<\/p>\n
     for.      Print        was dispensed with.         There        was     interim<\/p>\n
     stay to the judgment under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
     .          It     is     in    this situation,         after       relentless<\/p>\n
     efforts,        presence       of respondent no.2, Sk.Elias,                   the<\/p>\n
     owner     of the vehicle was procured.                 As the        claimants<\/p>\n
     are served, respective Counsels accept that the matter<\/p>\n
     is to be decided at admission stage itself.\n<\/p>\n
     .          Civil       Applications      were      made on         behalf        of<\/p>\n
     respondent        no.2,       the   Rickshaw owner          for      producing<\/p>\n
     additional        evidence, it was allowed.               These documents<\/p>\n
     are     R.T.O.         particulars issued on 2.7.2008                  and     the<\/p>\n
     judgment         in    criminal        prosecution        being          Summary<\/p>\n
     Criminal        Case No.799\/1997, decided on 20th Jan.,2004,<\/p>\n
     against Hamid Jalalkhan Pathan, Rickshaw Driver, under<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                      (7)<\/span>
\n     Sections 279, 304-A of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
     3.                      In     a    tragic           accident       dt.12.5.1997,<\/p>\n
     where     the     Rickshaw Driver of MH-26-6877 ferried                              six<\/p>\n
     passengers,           attempting to cross Railway Gate                        No.119,<\/p>\n
     situated        at KM 264\/11-12 on Ghatnandur-Parlivaijnath,<\/p>\n
     collided        with     Hyderabad Parali bound                   Railway.           Six<\/p>\n
     occupants        in     the said Auto Rickshaw                  expired.            FIR,<\/p>\n
     vide Crime No.66\/1997, was registered against the Auto<\/p>\n
     Rickshaw Driver at Parali.\n<\/p>\n
     4.                      The        owner        of      the     rickshaw,            was\n\n     original\n                           \n                     respondent         no.1,        while\n\n<\/pre>\n
     through General Manager, Railways, was respondent no.2
\n                                                                   Union      of      India,<\/p>\n
     in all the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     5.                      A     common       ground        was raised           by     the<\/p>\n
     claimants        that the accident was a result of rash                              and<\/p>\n
     negligent        driving       of auto rickshaw and                   the     Railway<\/p>\n
     Driver.         Before the learned Member of Motor                           Accident<\/p>\n
     Claims      Tribunal,           respondent             no.1     owner         Sk.Elias<\/p>\n
     remained absent.\n<\/p>\n
     6.                      There      is      no        doubt    about         death      of<\/p>\n
     Munjaji     s\/o        Gyanba      Lokhande,            Baban       s\/o          Munjaji<\/p>\n
     Lokhande,        Dropadabai         w\/o Bharat Maske, Balu @                       Rahul<\/p>\n
     s\/o     Bharat Maske (Kedare), Kalubai Shriram Pawar                                 and<\/p>\n
     Vishwanath            Vaijnath       Mogale,            passegers           in      Auto<\/p>\n
     rickshaw.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                               (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.                       The    main plank of submission from the<\/p>\n
     Counsel      for the appellant was to the jurisdiction                           of<\/p>\n
     learned      Member       to     entertain       the    claim        petitions<\/p>\n
     against      Railways          as,   according to him, in              view      of<\/p>\n
     definition         of Motor Vehicle provided in Section 2(28)<\/p>\n
     of    the    Motor Vehicles Act, the Railway is                      excluded.\n<\/p>\n
     The    second       aspect       urged    was,    the     unmanned          level<\/p>\n
     crossing      gate       is     located on a high bank,              which       is<\/p>\n
     equipped      with all necessary precautions, with warning<\/p>\n
     board,      speed breakers, whistle boards, of which                          care<\/p>\n
     should      have     been taken by the Rickshaw                 Driver.          In<\/p>\n
     support      of such contention, the affidavit of                       Railway<\/p>\n
     Officer<\/p>\n
     not
\n                  was<\/p>\n
            properly<\/p>\n
                          tendered and that the learned Judge<\/p>\n
                           consider the affidavit relating to
\n                                                                                    did<\/p>\n
                                                                                    the<\/p>\n
     situation at the site.\n<\/p>\n
     8.                       The    position of law is enumerated                    in<\/p>\n
     the    matter       of    Union      of   India      V.       United        India<\/p>\n
     Insurance       Co.       Ltd.       and others<\/a> ( AIR         1998      SUPREME<\/p>\n
     COURT     640)     and more specifically, in the                   matter        of<\/p>\n
     Union     of India Vs.           Bhagwatiprasad ( AIR 2002 SUPREME<\/p>\n
     COURT     1301).\n<\/p>\n
               1301)          In the matter of Union of India (                     AIR<\/p>\n
     1998 SUPREME COURT 640), in paragraph nos.                         41 and 42,<\/p>\n
     the Hon’ble Lordships have observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
                 “41.    Further, Section 110-E of the Act
\n                 provides for recovery of the compensation ”
\n                 from any persons” as arrears of land revenue
\n                 and recovery under that      Section is    not
\n                 restricted to the owner\/driver or insurer
\n                 specified in the second part of S.110-B.
\n                 Obviously, the words from any person are
\n                 referable   to   persons    other   than   the
\n                 driver\/owner or insurer of the motor vehicle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
      42.      For all the above reasons, we hold
\n      that   the     claim    for   compensation   is
\n      maintainable before the Tribunal against other
\n      persons or agencies which are held to be
\n      guilty of composite negligence or are joint
\n      tort feasors, and if arising out of use of the
\n      motor vehicle. We hold that the Tribunal and
\n      the High Court were right in holding that an<\/p>\n
      award could be passed against the Railways if
\n      its negligence in relation       to the    same
\n      accident was also proved. We find that there<\/p>\n
      has been a conflict of judicial opinion among
\n      the High Courts on the above aspect.        The
\n      Andhra Pradesh High Court in Oriental Fire &
\n      General Insurance Co.      Ltd. V.    Union of
\n      India 1975 ACC.CJ 33: AIR 1975 Andh Pra 222<\/p>\n
      took the view that the claims before the
\n      Tribunal are restricted to those against the
\n      driver, owner and insurer of the motor vehicle
\n      and not against the railways. But on facts
\n      the decision is correct inasmuch as though it
\n      was an accident between a lorry and a train at<\/p>\n
      a railway crossing, it was a case where the
\n      driver, cleaner etc., travelling in the lorry<\/p>\n
      were injured and there was no claim against
\n      the lorry owner. The suit was filed in 1967
\n      in the Civil Court and was decreed against the
\n      railway. A plea raised in the High Court that<\/p>\n
      the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and only
\n      the Tribunal had jurisdiction was negatived.
\n      In our view, on the facts the decision is
\n      correct because the plea was one of the
\n      exclusive negligence of the railway. In Union
\n      of India v. Bhimeswara Reddy,<\/a> 1988 Acc CJ<\/p>\n
      660:   (AIR 1989 Andh Pra 49), though the
\n      driver and owner were parties, the ultimate<\/p>\n
      finding was that the driver of the motor
\n      vehicle was not negligent       and the    sole
\n      negligence was that of the railway. The case
\n      then at that stage comes out of Section
\n      110(1). Here also the conclusion on facts, in<\/p>\n
      our view, is correct. But certain general
\n      broad observations made in these two cases
\n      that in no circumstances, a claim can be tried
\n      by the Tribunal against the persons\/agencies
\n      not referred to in the second part of Section
\n      110-B are not correct. Similarly, the Gauhati
\n      High Court in Swarnalata Dutta V.      National<\/p>\n
      Transport India (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 1974 Gauhati
\n      31, by the Orissa High Court in Orissa RTC
\n      Ltd.   v. Umakanta Singh, IR 1987 Orissa 110
\n      and the Madras High Court in Union of India v.
\n      Kailasan, 1974 Acc CJ 488 (Mad) have held that
\n      no award can be passed against others except
\n      the owner\/driver or insurer of the motor
\n      vehicle.     On the other hand, the Allahabad
\n      High Court in Union of India v.        Bhagwati
\n      Prasad, AIR<\/a> 1982 ALL.310, the majority in the
\n      Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High<\/p>\n
                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                         (10)<\/span>
\n                Court in Rajpal Singh V. Union of India, 1986
\n                ACC CJ 344: ( AIR 1986 Punj & Har. 239), the
\n                Gujrat High Court in Gujrat SRTC v. Union of
\n                India, AIR 1988 Gujrat 13, the Kerala High
\n                Court in the judgment under appeal and in
\n                United India Insurance Co. v.      Premkumaran
\n                1988 Acc CJ 597 and the Rajasthan High Court
\n                in Union of India v. Dr. Sewak Ram,<\/a> 1993<\/p>\n
                Acc.   366 have taken the view that the claim
\n                lies before the Tribunal even against another
\n                joint tort-feasor connected with the same<\/p>\n
                accident or against whom composite negligence
\n                is alleged.”\n<\/p>\n
     9.                      In     the matter of Union of India ( AIR<\/p>\n
     2002 SUPREME COURT 1301),
\n                        1301) the Hon’ble Lordships of the
\n                                                         e<\/p>\n
     Apex     Court       have      held that      the    crucial         expression<\/p>\n
     conferring          jurisdiction       upon     the       Claims         Tribunal<\/p>\n
     constituted          under     the    Motor Vehicles Act               is,      “the<\/p>\n
     accident        arising
\n                            ig     out of use of motor             vehicle”          and,<\/p>\n
     therefore,          if there has been a collission between the<\/p>\n
     motor     vehicle and the Railway train then the                          persons<\/p>\n
     could     make        application for compensation                 before         the<\/p>\n
     Claims     Tribunal not only against the owner, driver or<\/p>\n
     insurer        of     the    motor vehicle but also               against         the<\/p>\n
     Railway        Administration.         Once such an application                    is<\/p>\n
     held     to be maintainable and Tribunal entertains                             such<\/p>\n
     an     application,          being    in    course       of     inquiry,          the<\/p>\n
     Tribunal comes to a finding that it is the other joint<\/p>\n
     tort     feasor        connected      with the       accident,           who      was<\/p>\n
     responsible          and not the owner or driver of the                       motor<\/p>\n
     vehicle,        then     the     Tribunal     cannot be           held       to    be<\/p>\n
     denuded        of     its jurisdiction which it had                  initially.\n<\/p>\n
     In     other        words,     in    such a    case      also,       the       Motor<\/p>\n
     Accidents        Claims Tribunal would be entitled to                         award<\/p>\n
     compensation against other joint tort feasor.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                              (11)<\/span><\/p>\n
     10.                     Learned Counsel for the appellant took<\/p>\n
     me     to   the       judgment of this Court           in     First        Appeal<\/p>\n
     No.953\/1989           decided on June 28th, 2004, wherein                     this<\/p>\n
     Court,      applying the definition under Section 2(18) of<\/p>\n
     the     Motor        Vehicles      Act,   1939,    observed          that      the<\/p>\n
     definition           excludes      vehicles mechanically             propelled<\/p>\n
     vehidle     adapted          for    use   upon    roads       coupled         with<\/p>\n
     Section     110 of the said Act which indicates nature of<\/p>\n
     the     claims        which can be adjudicated by the                  Tribunal<\/p>\n
     established under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.                          This view<\/p>\n
     is     contrary        to what has been discussed by                 the      Apex<\/p>\n
     Court in AIR 2002 S.C.\n<\/p>\n
                            ig            1301 decided on March 7, 2002.\n                          \n     11.                     Thus,      the argument of Counsel for the\n\n     appellant        about lack of jurisdiction to the                     Tribunal\n\n     is dispelled.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     12.                     Now comes the question of liability as<\/p>\n
     to     the rashness and negligence either on the part                            of<\/p>\n
     the     Railways        or on the part of the Rickshaw                  driver.\n<\/p>\n
     This is a matter of evidence which needs to be scanned<\/p>\n
     in proper perspective.\n<\/p>\n
     13.                     The     FIR lodged immediately after                   the<\/p>\n
     accident        by     Kashinath Sukhdeo Rathod is, indeed,                      an<\/p>\n
     eye     opener.         On    the fateful day, he           was      going       to<\/p>\n
     Dharvati        Tanda     from Parali on his motor               cycle        with<\/p>\n
     pillion     rider        Ramkishan Bhivaji, when              they      reached<\/p>\n
     near     the Railway crossing, they saw that the                        Railway<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                      (12)<\/span>
\n     was coming from other side, proceeding towards Parali.\n<\/p>\n
     At     that moment, as per the FIR, he stopped the                              motor<\/p>\n
     cycle.         However,          the    Rickshaw     driver,           recklessly,<\/p>\n
     knowing        Railway       moving      on track, took            a     risk     and<\/p>\n
     proceeded        ahead, dashed against the running                        railway.\n<\/p>\n
     This     part        of the FIR, was permissible to be read                         in<\/p>\n
     evidence        in     view of the matter, deciding the                       claims<\/p>\n
     under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.                           However, the<\/p>\n
     learned Judge did not consider this aspect of the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
     However, the learned Judge, has skipped the discussion<\/p>\n
     of the FIR except referring that the Police registered<\/p>\n
     criminal        case against the driver of the auto rickshaw<\/p>\n
     only.<\/p>\n
\n\n     which\n                He\n\n               is\n                           \n                          proceeds to the situation of\n\n                         near    Parali        Railway     Station,\n                                                                        Gat     No.119,\n\n                                                                              which      is\n                          \n<\/pre>\n
     available for use by general public, it is an unmanned<\/p>\n
     gate,     without          any     guard being provided.                The      auto<\/p>\n
     rickshaw        driver       was       expected to      confirm         that      the<\/p>\n
     Railway        is     not    coming and thereafter to                   cross     the<\/p>\n
     road.      However,          according       to      learned           Judge,     the<\/p>\n
     railway        driver was expected to decrease the speed                            of<\/p>\n
     the     railway       at the gate of the road                crossing.            The<\/p>\n
     learned         Judge        further        observes,        “when         Railway<\/p>\n
     Department claims that the accident has taken place on<\/p>\n
     account        of     negligence of auto rickshaw                  driver,        the<\/p>\n
     Railway        Department         is expected to prove said                  fact”.\n<\/p>\n
     In     order to prove negligence of auto rickshaw driver,<\/p>\n
     respondent           no.2        examined     K.Nageshwarrao,                 Senior<\/p>\n
     Sectional        Engineer at Parali Vaijnath and also placed<\/p>\n
     on     record        copy of the inquiry report.                 According          to<\/p>\n
     the     learned Judge, evidence of P.K.Nageshwarrao being<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                               (13)<\/span>
\n     not     of     an     eye witness, being stated, based                     on     the<\/p>\n
     information collected by him, cannot be looked into.\n<\/p>\n
     14.                     The       learned Judge gave much                 emphasis<\/p>\n
     to     the     Railway Driver not stopping the train at                           the<\/p>\n
     spot     of the accident and reaching straight at                            Parali<\/p>\n
     Railway Station.             The disdain by Railway Driver in not<\/p>\n
     communicating           the accident to the higher                  authorities<\/p>\n
     weighed        adversely to the learned Judge.                     However, the<\/p>\n
     learned        Judge     did      not     whisper as to          how      to     deal<\/p>\n
     evidence when he pleads as to whether Assistant Driver<\/p>\n
     gave     any information to the driver of the train about<\/p>\n
     the     arrival<\/p>\n
     giving whistle.\n<\/p>\n
                            of     auto rickshaw on Railway                Track       and<\/p>\n
     15.                     Paragraph         14 of judgment deals to the<\/p>\n
     inquiry        report       which    shows that the driver                 or     the<\/p>\n
     Assistant        Driver       of the Railway failed to                  stop      the<\/p>\n
     train        immediately       after      the     accident         despite        the<\/p>\n
     knowledge        that       the auto was hit by the                train.         The<\/p>\n
     report        indicated       about the rickshaw dashing                   against<\/p>\n
     the     moving        train    at unmanned          level      crossing          Gate<\/p>\n
     No.119.         It was the accident due to sheer                      negligence<\/p>\n
     and     over confidence on the part of the auto                           rickshaw<\/p>\n
     driver.         The     learned         Judge did     not      consider          this<\/p>\n
     evidence        by brushing it aside on the ground that                           the<\/p>\n
     Senior        Sectional       Engineer      has       not      witnessed          the<\/p>\n
     accident        and the report of Inquiry Committee is short<\/p>\n
     to     prove     that       the     driver of the         railway         was     not<\/p>\n
     negligent at the time of accident.\n<\/p>\n
     16.                     It     is    a    matter of record              that      the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                               (14)<\/span>
\n     railway           track at the particular place of the accident<\/p>\n
     is     at a high pedestal of around 3.5 meters,                         referred<\/p>\n
     in     Panchnama to be above 50 ft.                ground level.              At     4<\/p>\n
     fts.         away        from the Railway track, protective                   poles<\/p>\n
     were     provided.              There   is no habitation          nearby           the<\/p>\n
     railway           track, as it is agricultural field.                   At least<\/p>\n
     for     30        to     35 meters to either side of             the     railway<\/p>\n
     track        is        visible for any vehicle coming             across           the<\/p>\n
     unmanned           railway       crossing.      There was no          curve         to<\/p>\n
     railway track.             It could not be in excessive speed, as<\/p>\n
     Parali        was        nearby.    The unmanned crossing by               itself<\/p>\n
     would        not be a factor for Railways to be                   responsible<\/p>\n
     to the accident.\n<\/p>\n
     17.<\/p>\n
                                The     complainant         (Kashinath        Rathod)<\/p>\n
     driving           his     motor bike could see the Railway                 coming<\/p>\n
     from     opposite direction, and stopped his vehicle,                              it<\/p>\n
     was     also        reasonably and rationally expected                   of     the<\/p>\n
     Rickshaw           driver to have stopped his rickshaw, not                        to<\/p>\n
     have     purchased             risk in crossing the        railway         track.\n<\/p>\n
     Since        Parali Railway Station is at a nearby distance,<\/p>\n
     the railway driver was whistling which was also enough<\/p>\n
     indication for the rickshaw driver to have got himself<\/p>\n
     alert.            That     apart, the situation at site               indicated<\/p>\n
     that     there were precautionary boards, speed                         breakers<\/p>\n
     to check high speed but, inspite of these aspects, the<\/p>\n
     accident has taken place.\n<\/p>\n
     18.                        Thus,     the     finding     recorded        by     the<\/p>\n
     learned Judge, by applying principles as enunciated in<\/p>\n
     the      matter           of    National      Insurance        Company             Vs.<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                      (15)<\/span>
\n     Kamalaprasad and others reported in 2004 ACJ 2154 M.P.\n<\/p>\n
     High       Court,    paragraph 13, could not have              have        been<\/p>\n
     applied       to the facts of the present case.                There       was<\/p>\n
     no material before the learned Judge to establish that<\/p>\n
     the     accident has taken place on account of negligence<\/p>\n
     on     the    part     of the driver of the        Railway.           It     is<\/p>\n
     unmistakably established that the accident taking toll<\/p>\n
     of     6     precious lives was the overzealousness                 of     the<\/p>\n
     driver of the auto rickshaw who was rash and negligent<\/p>\n
     and     was    solely responsible for the accident.                   It     is<\/p>\n
     not a case of composite negligence to be attributed to<\/p>\n
     the Railways or its driver.\n<\/p>\n
     19.<\/p>\n
                            The      contention of Mr.Pathan,            Counsel<\/p>\n
     representing         the Rickshaw owner that he was not owner<\/p>\n
     at     the material time is difficult to digest.                    He     did<\/p>\n
     not     adduce any evidence.          No eye witness examined                by<\/p>\n
     claimants.          The rickshaw driver or the rickshaw owner<\/p>\n
     did not feel it essential to appear in the proceedings<\/p>\n
     and allowed the same to complete ex parte.\n<\/p>\n
     20.                    The      Counsel for the appellant             though<\/p>\n
     argued about the excessive compensation to each of the<\/p>\n
     claimant,       I do not wish to advert to the same as                      the<\/p>\n
     matter,       so     far   as the appellant      is     concerned,           is<\/p>\n
     decided       in     the   above    background and        there       is     no<\/p>\n
     challenge to the award from the rickshaw owner.\n<\/p>\n
     21.                    The reference of ownership recorded in<\/p>\n
     SCC     No.799\/1997        by    the learned Judge in          his       order<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>
\n                            (16)<\/span>
\n     dt.20th        Jan.,2004, in paragraph 13 thereof, will                               not<\/p>\n
     mean     and     lead to draw an inference that the                            vehicle<\/p>\n
     was     owned by Sayyad Chand s\/o Sayyad Waliuddin as                                   on<\/p>\n
     the     date     of accident.               Said Sayyad Chand             making        an<\/p>\n
     application          to        the     Court        concerned        on        3.7.1997<\/p>\n
     requesting          to        hand over the seized auto rickshaw                        on<\/p>\n
     Supurdnama ( undertaking) claiming himself to be owner<\/p>\n
     of     the auto rickshaw, annexing therewith xerox copies<\/p>\n
     of the sale letter dt.7.4.1997, xerox copy of tax book<\/p>\n
     dt.4.3.1992          or copy of R.C.                Book by itself will               not<\/p>\n
     exonerate the respondent Sk.                        Elias.     No such plea was<\/p>\n
     raised       before           the     learned Judge.          That      apart,        the<\/p>\n
     accident<\/p>\n
     sale
\n                    is
\n                           ig taken on 12.5.1997 while the<\/p>\n
              letter is dt.7.4.1997 but there is no such entry
\n                                                                               so      called<\/p>\n
     in     the     R.T.O.          records showing such transfer of                       the<\/p>\n
     vehicle        from Sk.Elias Sk.Burhan to said Sayyad                              Chand<\/p>\n
     Sayyad       Waliuddin.              The R.T.O.        particulars are               also<\/p>\n
     short        of acceptance of such theory as they are in the<\/p>\n
     name of respondent Sk.Elias.\n<\/p>\n
     22.                       The         net       result        is,      though         the\n\n\n\n\n\n     claimants       have           established           their     entitlement            for\n\n     compensation             on     account        of    loss     of     their        family\n\n     members,       however, the evidence is short to                            attribute\n\n\n\n\n\n     any     responsibility\/liability against the Railways.                                    I\n\n     hold,        the accident was due to sheer negligence of the\n\n     Rickshaw       driver.               The    Railway driver or,              for      that\n\n     purpose,       the appellant Union of India, cannot be held\n\n     responsible.             Hence order.\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>\n                        (17)<\/span>\n               ORDER\n\n\n\n     .         The appeals allowed to the extent of appellant\n\n     - Union of India.     The order of the learned Additional\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n<\/pre>\n
     District Judge and Ex Officio Member of Motor Accident<\/p>\n
     Claims    Tribunal,   Nanded,   under       challenge          is     not<\/p>\n
     disturbed, so far as respondent no.2, the owner of the<\/p>\n
     vehicle    Sk.Elias   s\/o   Sk.Burhan.        No     costs.          Stay<\/p>\n
     petitions disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                              ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
\n                                               J )<\/p>\n
                …\n<\/p>\n
     (agp:u\/fa4058-08gr)<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:32:54 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009 Bench: K.U. Chandiwal (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD F.A. NOS. 4058\/2008, 4059\/2008, 4060\/2008, 4061\/2008, 4062\/2008, 4063\/2008. Date of decision: 24\/4\/2009 For approval and signature HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-218124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-13T07:11:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T07:11:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2723,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Whether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T07:11:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Whether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-13T07:11:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T07:11:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009"},"wordCount":2723,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009","name":"Whether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T07:11:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-bharat-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Bharat on 24 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218124","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=218124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218124\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}