FA/1047/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1047 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 INDUBEN DAHYABHAI DARJI & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HC RAVAL FOR MR SN SHELAT for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Defendant(s) : 1 - 6. (MR PB MAJMUDAR) for Defendant(s) : 1 - 6. ========================================================= 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/1047/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT the judgment and order dated 27/11/1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Vadodara in the Motor Accident Claim Application No.459 of 1984 whereby the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has partly allowed the application and awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- 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) In this Motor Accident Claim Application, the applicants who are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Dr.Dahyabhai Ramlal Darji claimed total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the accidental death of Dr.Dahyabhai Ramlal Darji who has died because of the motor vehicular accident which had occurred on 12/5/1984 at about 4:30 p.m. near Alkapuri turning on R.C.Dutt Road within the city of Vadodara when he knocked down from over his vehicle by the ST Bus No.GRS 8041. 2.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- as a compensation. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended on FA/1047/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT the part of contributory negligence and the Tribunal in para 15 to 35 of the judgment has discussed the same and detail and come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred because of negligence of driver of ST driver. The learned advocate for the appellant has also raised contention on the quantum part of the compensation and stated that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the amount of compensation. For the same, the Tribunal in para 39 has discussed the matter in detail and after considering the income of the deceased and the amount deducted for personal expenditure, awarded the amount of compensation. 4. 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. 5. 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 FA/1047/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT 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. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)