FA/2196/1985 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2196 of 1985 With FIRST APPEAL No. 2197 of 1985 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 ? ========================================================= ARVINDKUMAR CHIRANJILAL GUPTA - Appellant(s) Versus MANILAL SOMABHAI HARIJAN & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR YN OZA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MD PANDYA for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/05/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 By way of these appeals, the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 31st FA/2196/1985 2/3 JUDGMENT August, 1984 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha District at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petitions No.86 of 1982 and 105 of 1982 whereby the claim petitions filed by the original claimants were dismissed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the appellants that on 11th November, 1981 at about 1.30 p.m., the appellants were going on a Motorcycle bearing No.GJF/3763 towards Patan. One S.T. bus 'Palanpur- Rajosan' bearing No.GTF-5277 was going ahead of them. The driver of the motorcycle tried to overtake the bus near Sherpura bus-stop but the driver of the bus, without blowing the horn and without giving any signal, took a sudden turn towards the 'kutcha' road to village Sherpura. As a result, the front portion (bumper) of the S.T. Bus dashed with the leg of the pillion-rider. The driver of the motorcycle lost control and the motorcycle was thrown off the road and both the appellants were injured. The injured appellants were taken to the Civil Hospital at Palanpur and thereafter, to the dispensary of a private Orthopaedic Surgeon. The appellants sustained permanent partial disability on account of grievous injuries on various parts of the body. 2.2 The appellants, therefore, filed separate claim petitions before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-, in all, on the ground that they have sustained permanent partial disability which will, in turn, affect their future prospects at work. While considering the claim of the appellants – original claimants, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that while trying to overtake the S.T. Bus, the driver of the motorcycle had lost control as a result of which, the motorcycle fell off the road in a hedge and held that the accident occurred because of negligent driving of the motorcyclist FA/2196/1985 3/3 JUDGMENT and not on account of negligence of the S.T. Bus driver. Hence, the present appeals. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is an undisputed fact that the driver of the motorcycle tried to overtake the S.T. Bus going ahead. In the process, the driver of the motorcycle lost control over the vehicle as a result of which, the motorcycle slipped and fell off the road. Secondly, it appears from the record that the injured appellants had filed the complaint after a delay of four months. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the appellants for such delay. Thirdly, as per the say of the appellants, the front portion of the bus had dashed with the leg of the pillion-rider. But from the panchnama of the S.T. bus, it is clear that there was no damage to the bus. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accident was with the S.T. bus and had occurred because of negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Nothing contrary is coming from the record to record a finding contrary to the one mentioned hereinabove. Keeping in mind the above aspects, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petitions of the appellants. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and, therefore, no interference is called for. 4.0 In the result, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. ( K.S. Jhaveri, J. ) hki