FA/542/1985 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 542 of 1985 With FIRST APPEAL No. 543 of 1985 To FIRST APPEAL No. 544 of 1985 With FIRST APPEAL No. 837 of 1985 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1702 of 1984 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 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 ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus SHIRIN MAHENDRAKUMAR PARIKH & 4 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AP MEDH for Appellant(s) : 1 – 2. MR NITIN M AMIN for Defendant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 2,4 – 5. MR MD PANDYA for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI FA/542/1985 2/6 JUDGMENT Date : 16/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of these appeals, the appellants, the New India Assurance Company, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and one Rajdevsing Ramnarayansing have challenged the common judgment and award dated 22-23/2/1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) Ahmedabad City in the Motor Accident Claim Application Nos.138 of 1982, 187 of 1982, 188 of 1982 and 29 of 1983 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the applications and awarded the amount of compensation in all the applications i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- in MACP No.187 of 1982, Rs.9,999/- in MACP No.188 of 1982, Rs.10,100/- in MACP No.138 of 1982 and Rs.34,400/- in MACP No.29 of 1983, in all, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of payment with proportionate costs. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal are as under: 2.1) Present four claim petitions were filed by the petitioners under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation for the personal injuries FA/542/1985 3/6 JUDGMENT sustained by each of them in the accident caused while they were traveling as passengers in Double Decker S.T. Bus No.GRS 8041 which was going to Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad from Sector-28-29, Gandhinagar. The vehicle involved in the accident was Double Decker ST Bus No.GRS 8041 and an Oil Tanker No.GRD 3438. One Police Van No.GRG 884 was also involved in the accident. According to the petitioners, on 17/6/1981, when ST Bus was near octroi naka at Bhilvas in Sabarmati, the driver of the double decker bus rashly and negligently dashed the passenger trailer of the bus at the back of oil tanker which was proceeding a head of the bus in an attempt to over take the oil tanker. It was also stated that in such an attempt, the bus had collied with the Police Van No.GRG 884, coming from the opposite side. As a result of the said accident, petitioners sustained injuries and therefore, they have claimed compensation according to the injuries sustained by them. 2.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation as stated above in all the petitions. Hence, these appeals. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant- Assurance Company has FA/542/1985 4/6 JUDGMENT contended that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding the amount of compensation and also committed error in holding that the driver of the oil tanker was responsible for negligence to the extent of 40%. In fact while overtaking oil tanker, ST Bus driver was negligent. 4. The learned counsel for the State Road Transport Corporation has submitted that it was contributory negligence and amount awarded to the claimants is on higher side. 5. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that looking to the age of the claimants and injuries sustained by them, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the documents on record. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, more particularly, the documentary evidence in the form of complaint at Mark – 32/2 and the 'panchnama' of the place of incident at Exhibit – 45, has come to the conclusion that the ratio of negligence between the driver of the S.T. Bus and the Tanker was 60 : 40. The said conclusion has been arrived at on the basis of the oral evidence on record of the claimants along with other documentary evidence, as stated herein above. The S.T. Bus in question, being a Double-decker, ought to have been driven in a FA/542/1985 5/6 JUDGMENT careful manner as it was carrying a number of passengers. So far as the Tanker is concerned, the same was parked on the side of a busy public road contrary to the traffic rules. On the basis of the said facts, the Tribunal apportioned the negligence of both the drivers in the ratio of 60 : 40. In my view, considering the evidence discussed herein above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was completely justified in apportioning the liability of the driver of the S.T. Bus and the Tanker in the ratio of 60 : 40 and I am in complete agreement with the said finding arrived at by the Tribunal. 7. On the quantum part of the compensation also, the Tribunal has discussed the matters in detail and looking to the age of the petitioners and injuries sustained by the petitioners, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. In that view of the matter, appeals preferred by the appellants deserve to be dismissed. 8. Considering the documentary evidence on record, I am of the view the the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation is just and proper which requires to be approved. I am in complete agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. Contributory negligence in the ratio of 60:40 held by the Tribunal is just and proper. No case is FA/542/1985 6/6 JUDGMENT made out to interfere. Hence, all the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 9. For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)