IA/1573/2026 of ARUN MANIKRAO MOHARE AND ORS Vs THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MSRTC AND ORS. on 6 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

59 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1568 OF 2026

IN

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 2225 OF 2026

Bhagyashree Chagan Kale And Ors

...Applicants

Versus

The Divisional Controller MSRTC

...Respondent

60 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1569 OF 2026

IN

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 2229 OF 2026

Janabai Devnarayan Kashid And Ors

...Applicants

Versus

The Divisional Controller MSRTC And Ors.

...Respondents

61 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1570 OF 2026

IN

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 2235 OF 2026

Rajshree Sambhaji Mahingade And Ors

...Applicants

Versus

The Divisional Controller MSRTC And Anr.

...Respondents

62 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1573 OF 2026

IN

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 2232 OF 2026

Arun Manikrao Mohare And Ors

...Applicants

Versus

The Divisional Controller MSRTC And Ors.

...Respondents

…..

Adv. R. S. Alange, Advocate for Claimants/Applicants.

Adv. Ketan Patil a/w Adv. Pinky Bhansali, Advocate for Respondent - MSRTC.

…..

ZIP

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 06th OCTOBER, 2026.

P.C. :

Heard.

2.

These applications are decided by common order.

3.

The Corporation has preferred four (4) appeals challenging distinct Judgments and Awards passed by the Tribunal. Following is the break - up of the claims at a glance :

Interim

Application No.

Name of the

Deceased

M.A.C.P. No.

(Proceeding No.)

Awarded Amount Deposited Amount

IA/1568/2026

Chagan Limbaji

Kale

Rs.37,24,000/-@

7% p.a.

Rs.51,36,018/-

IA/1569/2026

Devnarayan

Mahadev Kashid

Rs.71,10,436/-@

7% p.a.

Rs.98,15,386/-

IA/1570/2026

Sambhaji

Janardhan

Mahingade

Rs.81,83,560/-@

7% p.a.

Rs.1,12,98,926/-

IA/1573/2026

Rakesh Arun

Mohare

Rs.38,51,440/-@

7% p.a.

Rs.53,12,114/-

4.

The applicants are the defendants upon the deceased who were employees of Panchayat Samiti and who were traveling in a Jeep which was collided with vehicle of the respondent – Corporation.

5.

It is contended that they have not been disbursed anything after the awards. For the reasons stated in the application, they are claiming the amount. It is further contended that considering the expenses and needs of the family, amounts be disbursed.

6.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent –

ZIP

Corporation would vehemently oppose the applications. It is submitted that the driver of the Jeep was responsible and he was overspeeding. It is a case of contributory negligence and exorbitant compensation is awarded in each case. It is further submitted that the applicants are unable to produce on record the relevant material and the claim is unfounded. The appeals have been preferred against unreasonable and arbitrary quantum.

7.

The deaths occurred in the accident are undisputed. The bread earners of the family have lost their lives in the accident. The applicants have not been paid any amount. It would be wholly pedantic to keep the applicants waiting till final disposal of the appeals. The appeals are not likely to be decided finally within short time.

8.

Considering the defense raised by the respondent and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, I am not inclined to disburse the entire deposited amount in each matter. But the ends of the justice would be met in permitting the applicants to receive 50% of the amount with accrued interest. The contentious issues involved in the matter can be dealt with at the time of final disposal of the appeals. Hence, I pass the following order :