FA/1990/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1990 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ============================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================== BHARTIBEN RAMESHBHAI PATEL & 4 - Appellant(s) Versus RAVAL SAVABHAI RUNGNATHBHAI & 2 - Defendant(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MR HITESH N ACHARYA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 5. RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Defendant(s) : 3, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 05/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/1990/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED) 1. Heard Mr. Hitesh N. Acharya learned advocate appearing for appellants- ori. Claimants and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 3. 2. This First Appeal is preferred by the appellants – ori. claimants against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur on 20.7.2007. 3. The facts of the present case briefly stated that, on 1.1.1993, at about 2.00pm, when deceased Rameshbhai Gopalbhai Patel was driving scooter bearing No. GBZ-1491 on the right side of the road at a slow speed from Balaram to Virpur and at that time, respondent no. 1 – driver, who was, driving Jeep bearing No. GRN-210 on the wrong side of the road on full speed and negligently, therefore, dashed with scooter of the deceased, due to that, scooter rub on right side and carried away from back side to distance up to 86 feets. As a result, deceased Rameshbhai Gopalbhai Patel died on the spot. Therefore, the legal heirs of deceased Rameshbhai Gopalbhai Patel filed the petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 231/1993 for the compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for Rs. 13,50,000/-. 4. The appellants have produced oral as well as FA/1990/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT documentary evidence before the Tribunal and after perusal of the same, the Tribunal has passed judgment and award by awarding compensation of Rs. 6,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9.00% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till realization from the opponents. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award passed by the MAC Tribunal (Auxi.), Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur on 20.7.2007, the appellants have preferred this appeal with a contention that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to overlooking the evidence produced before the Tribunal and based on conjecture and surmises and it is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it and the Tribunal has not applied the current principle governing the assessment and awarding compensation. It is contended that Tribunal has not properly considered the facts and merits of the case. It is further contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding lesser amount of compensation on such evidence of income of the deceased and also ignoring 100% negligence of the respondent no. 1 – driver which is proved by the panchnama. It is contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the decision of the Apex Court and the income of the deceased. It is also contended that the rate of interest awarded is very low and the same was FA/1990/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT not properly considered by the Tribunal. 6. We have perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the appellants and the contentions raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 3 – The New India Insurance Company Limited has argued that the contention of the present appellants is against the provisions of law and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also submitted that Insurance Company has also preferred an appeal being First Appeal No. 296/2008 against the same judgment and award. He has vehemently argued that the present appeal is required to be dismissed. 7. We have read the complaint as well as panchnama produced on record. It is true that in the said accident, respondent no. 1 is a eye witnesses, but he never bothered to appear before the Tribunal. We have considered the panchnama produced at Ex. 27 and considered the fact which is explained in the said panchnama. We have also considered that scooter of the deceased was rub on right side and carried away from back side to distance up to 86 feets. So, considering the position of the scooter, it can be established that the speed of Jeep was very fast and due to the negligent act of the driver of Jeep, the said accident has occurred. FA/1990/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT 8. To prove the income of deceased, the appellants have produced documentary evidence with regard to the ownership of agricultural land. We have gone through the reasons given by the Tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased, we do not found any error so far as the income of the deceased is concerned. We have also considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and perused the contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellants for enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants for the death of Rameshbhai Gopalbhai Patel, we have not found any reason to interfere with the reasons given by the Tribunal in its judgment and award dated 20.7.2007 rendered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 321/1993. 9. It is well settled that when the Appellate Court agrees with the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the reasons given in it, then, it is not necessary for the Appellate Court to re-read the oral evidence and to re-explain the reasons for consideration. Hence, we do not find any merits in this appeal and the same requires to be dismissed. 10. In the result, this First Appeal is hereby dismissed. (J.R. VORA, J.) (Z.K. SAIYED, J.) mandora/