FA/1865/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1865 of 1987 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 ? =================================== KUMUDBEN NULRAJSINH RAJ - Appellant(s) Versus M M PATHAN & ORS & 3 - Defendant(s) =================================== Appearance : MR NK MAJMUDAR for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MD PANDYA for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3. None for Defendant(s) : 4, =================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 FA/1865/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad dated 16.1.1987 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.699 of 1983 whereby the claim petition against the respondent nos.1, 2 and 5 came to be rejected. 2. On 13.11.1982 the applicant was traveling on a scooter along with her husband. They were going towards Anand. When it came near Vghashi sign board one truck was found in a stationary condition on the left hand side of the road. One truck and a jeep were ahead of the scooter. Both the vehicles had overtaken the stationary truck and the scooter was behind the jeep. At that time an S.T. Bus came in excessive speed from the opposite side and dashed against the scooter. The applicant fell down and sustained injuries. She thereafter filed the aforesaid claim petition. The Tribunal awarded Rs.34,600/- with interest at 6% against original opponent no.3 and opponent nos.1, 2 and 4 were exonerated. 3. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, the discussion FA/1865/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT on the aspect of liability is found in paragraphs 8 to 13 and more particular in para 10 wherein it is stated as under: “It was not possible for the opponent No.3 to go ahead without taking his scooter towards the right hand side of the stationary truck. She has admitted that when she for the first time saw the bus it was on the correct side of the road. So, till then the driver of the bus was not responsible. As the distance was 25 to 30 feet only, the opponent No.3 should not have made an attempt to go ahead and that too by taking the scooter towards the wrong side of the road i.e. the eastern part of the road. She admits that the truck and the jeep, which were ahead of the scooter had not dashed against the S.T. bus. Now the truck and jeep which were ahead of the scooter were required to go ahead by going from the right hand side of the stationary truck. This will therefore go to show that the bus was completely on the left hand side of the road because no accident had taken place when those two other vehicles proceeded further by overtaking the stationary truck. She has denied that while overtaking the stationary truck, the scooter had dashed against the left hand side bumper of the bus.” 3. Thus, it cannot be said that the opponent no.2 was not responsible for the accident. 4. The next contention was that the Insurance Company was liable to satisfy the compensation. In this regard the Tribunal observed as under: “However, the applicant cannot be said to be third party because she was traveling on the scooter as a pillion rider and the risk of a pillion rider is not specifically FA/1865/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT covered by this insurance policy. I will now proceed to quantify the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant of this claim petition.” 5. In that view of the matter I do not find any substance in the above contention. 6. In the premises aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar