FA/1048/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1048 of 1987 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 ? ========================================================= GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN - Appellant(s) Versus NAVINCHANDRA DHANSUKHLAL PAINTER & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, original opponent no.1 has challenged FA/1048/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT the judgment and order dated 7/2/1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Bharuch in the Motor Accident Claim Application No.566 of 1985 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.89,601/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realization with proportionate costs. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal is as under: 2.1) Here the Motor Accident Claim Petition has been filed by the injured who received injuries in the accident which took place on 14/4/1984 at about 9:00 a.m. Near village Zadeshwar of Bharuch District. The vehicle involved in the accident is a motor cycle no.GRJ 3155 driven by the applicant himself and S.T. Bus No.GRR 9944, driven by opponent no.2 and owned by opponent no.1. The contention of the petitioner is that he was going on a motorcycle from Bharuch to Shuklatirth and the S.T. Bus was coming from Selamba and going towards Ahmedabad. It was driven by opponent no.2 and it dashed against the petitioner whereby the petitioner was thrown away and he received injuries. He has claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him because of the said accident. 2.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded FA/1048/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT the compensation of Rs.89,601/- as a compensation as stated. Hence, this appeal. 3. The main contention which has been raised by the learned counsel is that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the driver of the ST bus was solely responsible for the accident. According to him, both the vehicles are equally responsible for the accident and he has also contended that the award passed in favour of the original applicant is also on higher side. 4. Since, the advocate for the claimant is expired but considering the case on record, the Tribunal in para 6 to 8 of the judgment, came to the conclusion that the negligence is contributory negligence and the driver of the ST bus was held responsible and also held that the claimant is entitled for recovery of damages from the ST Corporation. For the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has considered the facts in para 21 of the judgment in detail and after considering the age and the income of the applicant, awarded the amount of compensation. The learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the amount of award is on higher side but keeping in mind the loss to the family, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. FA/1048/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main issue raised before the Court below was regarding the aspect of negligence. The Court below has mainly relied upon the documentary evidence. From the documentary evidence, it transpires that the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST Bus. While considering the aspect of quantum of compensation also, the Tribunal has awarded just and proper amount of compensation. 6. Considering the documentary evidence on record, I am of the view the the Court below has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation is just and proper which requires to be approved and therefore, the same is approved. I am in complete agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. The accident was occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST bus. No case is made out to interfere. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)