FA/1013/1986 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1013 of 1986 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 ? ========================================================= D. NAGRAJAN & 3 - Appellant(s) Versus DHIREN TRANSPORT COMPANY & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SR DIVETIA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 4. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3, 5, (MR PV NANAVATI) for Defendant(s) : 4, MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Defendant(s) : 4, MR BR SHAH for Defendant(s) : 4, MR KF DALAL for Defendant(s) : 6, MS AMEE YAJNIK for Defendant(s) : 6, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal, at the instance of the original FA/1013/1986 2/3 JUDGMENT claimants, is directed against the judgement and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol in MAC Petition No.106 of 1984 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.26500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. The accident in question took place on 24th April 1983 between two vehicles, one of matador and another is tanker. The deceased was travelling in matador. In the accident the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same and therefore the aforesaid claim petition came to be filed. The appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimant. 3. Mr. S.R. Divetia, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that both the vehicles are equally responsible for the accident in question. He has also submitted that the award is also on the lower side. 4. While considering the negligence the Tribunal has discussed in para 7 of the judgement. It states as under: “At the same time, the evidence of the eye witness to the incident who generally alleged rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker is not at all challenged by any cross-examination on FA/1013/1986 3/3 JUDGMENT behalf of the insurance company of the tanker.” 5. In view of the above finding I am of the view that the negligence has been amply proved. 6. As regards the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has reduced only ½ of the income whereas it should have been 1/3rd as per the latest decision. However, since there is no cross objection, the same is not disturbed. 7. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. No case is made out to cause interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar