FA/1760/1990 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1760 of 1990 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 ? ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus HAMIDABIBI WD/O AHEMADBHAI @ BABU ABBASHBHAI SHAIKH & 8 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1,MR SN SHELAT for Appellant(s) : 1, MR RN SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 5. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 6 - 8. MR NARENDRA JAIN for MR SV RAJU for Defendant(s) : 9, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 18th April 1990 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Panchmahals at Godhra in MACP FA/1760/1990 2/2 JUDGMENT No.1058/1987. 2. On 9.11.1986 the Babubhai was walking on the left side of the road. At that time the original opponent no.3 came driving an auto rickshaw and one S.T. Bus also came in a rash and negligent manner. The rickshaw could not control and it dashed with Babubhai. He sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. Hence the aforesaid claim petition came to be filed which was allowed. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding both the S.T. Driver and driver of rickshaw equally responsible for the accident. It was also argued that the compensation awarded is excessive. 4. While considering the issue of negligence the tribunal has discussed in detail in paras 8 to 21 and has come to the conclusion that both the drivers are equally responsible. Nothing is pointed out to take a different view of the matter. 5. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. There are no merits in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar