FA/290/1986 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 290 of 1986 With FIRST APPEAL No. 291 of 1986 To FIRST APPEAL No. 293 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 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 ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= BABUBHAI PARSHOTTAMDAS PATEL & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus SITABEN WD/O.MAGANBHAI KACHARADAS & 8 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JC VYAS for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR JM BAROT for Defendant(s) : 1, 3, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2,4 - 6, 8, NOTICE UNSERVED for Defendant(s) : 7, MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 9, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 16/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/290/1986 2/6 JUDGMENT 1. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the common judgment and award dated 17/4/1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) Mehsana in the Motor Accident Claim Application Nos.356 of 1980, 361 of 1980, 362 of 1980, 363 of 1980, 449 of 1980 and 235 of 1981 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has partly allowed four petitions and awarded amount of compensation of Rs.48,264/- in MACP No.356 of 1980, Rs.2,500/- in MACP No.361 of 1980, Rs.1,20,000/- in MACP No.362 of 1980 and Rs.86,984/- in MACP No.449 of 1980, in, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till recovery with proportionate costs. The Tribunal has also dismissed two petitions i.e. MACP No.363 of 1980 and MACP No.235 of 1981. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal are as under: 2.1) All the above said claim petitions arose out of one common accident which had taken place on 15/5/1980 near village Bhandu as a result of the collision between the Matador bearing No.GTD-5560 and the truck No.GTF- 4248. In this accident, two persons had died and about five persons had sustained injuries. The claimants have therefore, filed claim petitions for recovery of compensation. FA/290/1986 3/6 JUDGMENT 2.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation in four claim petitions and dismissed two claim petitions as stated above. Hence, these appeals. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal has committed error in dismissing two claim petitions. The learned counsel has also contended that the Tribunal has committed error in holding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Matador No.GTD 5560. 4. I have heard both the sides. The Tribunal has discussed the matter in para-33 of the judgment and after considering the documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Matador. Para-33 of the impugned judgment reads as under: “33. Now if we peruse the other contents of the panchnama and that about the position and damage of the Matador then the engine part and the front show part were completely smashed and the body of the Matador was also completely smashed. The driver's cabin was also in broken FA/290/1986 4/6 JUDGMENT condition. The front right wheel was found in cut condition. The seats inside the Matador were completely broken. Now the panch witnesses had also found that the rear right hand side wheel of the Matador was about 8' away from the western edge of the road and the front right hand side wheel of the Matador was 12 feet away from the western side edge of the road. The rear left hand side wheel of the Matador was 14' from the eastern side of the road. These facts completely prove that it is the Matador which was lying on its wrong side of the road because the Matador was going from southern side to northern side and its correct side can be said to be the western side and off side can be said to be the eastern side but the Matador had been driven in such a fashion that it had kept major portion of the tar road open on the western side and hand covered majority portion of the tar road on its off side i.e. on the eastern side and in my view because the Matador had been driven more on its off side i.e. on his wrong side this accident had taken place. Looking to the position in which the truck was lying on its correct side and that on the Kacha road it can be well said that the truck must have come on its correct side of the road and I would go to the length of saying that the circumstances speak that on seeing the Matador being driven on the wrong side of the road the driver of the truck must have taken his vehicle FA/290/1986 5/6 JUDGMENT extremely on his left hand side of the road but inspite of that the Matador collided with the truck and relying on these circumstances it can be said without hesitation that the entire fault was on the part of the driver of the Matador and the driver of the truck had not contributed the negligence in any way. I would repeat and say that it is the cardinal principle of nature that the witnesses may speak a lie but the circumstances would never and relying on this principle that I have put reliance on the most important document which has been produced of the scene of accident prepared by the police agency during the investigation of the crime registered against the driver of the Matador. May be that he was acquitted in that case but relying on that circumstances I am not prepared to exonerate the driver of the Matador in the present petitions for the reasons I have already discussed. So I end my this discussion by holding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving only on the part of the driver of the Matador No.GTD-5560 and further hold that the driver of the truck No.GTF-4248 had not contributed to the negligence at all and hence I answer issue nos.1 and 2 accordingly.” 5. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and hence find no reasons FA/290/1986 6/6 JUDGMENT to interfere in this appeal. Since the driver of the Matador is held responsible, the appeals filed by the driver of the Matador cannot be entertained. The appeal filed by the owner of the Matador also cannot be entertained in view of the discussion made in the common judgment and award by the Tribunal. No case is made out to interfere. Hence, all the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)