FA/1032/1987 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1032 of 1987 With FIRST APPEAL No. 12 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ====================================== 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 ? ====================================== NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. Versus GUARANG R KHICHADIYA AND OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : MR SB VAKIL for Appellant. MR DR BHATT for Respondent No.1. NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent Nos. 2, 5. MR ARUN H MEHTA for Respondent No.3. DELETED for Respondent No.4. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 15/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. First Appeal No.1032 of 1987 is filed by the insurance company while First Appeal No.12 of 1989 is filed by the claimant. By way of FA/1032/1987 2/3 JUDGMENT these appeals, both the sides have challenged the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 9th January 1987, whereby the tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the claimant. Tribunal has considered issue no.1 regarding negligence in paragraph 16 and 17 of its judgment and while concluding the same issue in paragraph 18, on page 38, tribunal has observed as under: “In view of same distinguishing facts which are not available in this matter but which were available in the above said case, the propertion shall be different as has been arrived at in the above-said decision reported in 1983 Accidents Claim Journal at page 290. As such, taking into consideration the facts available in this matter and the principles inunciated in the decision above the responsibility of both the Drivers can be said to be equal i.e. 50 percent on the part of the Driver of the Car. Issue No.(1), therefore, will stand answered accordingly.” 2. Accordingly, the tribunal has given finding that responsibility of both the vehicles is equal. I am in complete agreement with the finding of the tribunal, therefore, the appeal of the insurance company contending that they were not liable or liability of the stationary truck was less is not accepted, in view of documentary and oral evidence. 3. Advocate for the claimant has argued that compensation under the head of loss of expectancy of life is less. However, in my view, taking into consideration overall aspect of the matter and considering the age of the victim, the tribunal considered just and proper income, which FA/1032/1987 3/3 JUDGMENT requires no interference. Accordingly, these appeals deserve to be dismissed and the same are dismissed. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) /malek