FA/344/1989 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 344 of 1989 With FIRST APPEAL No. 384 of 1989 To FIRST APPEAL No. 388 of 1989 With CROSS OBJECTION No. 51 of 2007 To CROSS OBJECTION No. 54 of 2007 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 GITABEN DHRUVKUMAR SHAH & 7 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 8. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI FA/344/1989 2/5 JUDGMENT Date : 12/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These Appeals are directed against the common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. Nos. 877/1983, 733/1983, 665/1983, 778/1983, 961/1983, 1013/1983, 1015/1983, 1018/1983, 743/1983 to 747/1983 whereby, the said claim petitions were partly allowed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.1983, in the night hours, while deceased – Dhruvkumar Balakrishna was going to Ahmedabad from Vadodara in an S. T. Bus bearing registration No. GRR – 8617, a Truck came from the opposite direction with its head-lights in a dazzling condition, on account of which the driver of the S. T. Bus lost control of the Bus and dashed with a Tanker bearing registration No. GTK – 5269 stationed on the side of the road. As a result of the said accident, several passengers traveling in the said Bus sustained severe bodily injuries. Deceased – Dhruvkumar Balakrishna also sustained severe injuries and ultimately, succumbed to it. 2.1 The legal heirs and representatives of the deceased and the other injured passengers FA/344/1989 3/5 JUDGMENT therefore, filed claim petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal framed the issues and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, it partly allowed the claim petitions by passing the impugned common award. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant – Corporation has preferred F. A. No. 344/1989 against the award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 877/1983, F. A. No. 384/1989 against M.A.C.P. No. 733/1983, F. A. No. 385/1989 against M.A.C.P. No. 778/1983, F. A. No. 386/1989 against M.A.C.P. No. 961/1983, F. A. No. 387/1989 against M.A.C.P. No. 1013/1983 and F. A. No. 388/1989 against M.A.C.P. No. 1015/1983. 2.3 The original claimants have filed Cross- objections in F. A. Nos. 384/1989, 385/1989, 387/1989 and 388/1989 against the impugned award for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and perused the documents on record. None appears on behalf of the respondents – original claimants. In Paragraph Nos. 29 to 42, the Tribunal has discussed the evidence in detail while deciding the aspect of negligence. The Tribunal has mainly relied upon the documentary evidence in the form of complaint at Exhibit – FA/344/1989 4/5 JUDGMENT 167 and the panchnama of the place of accident at Exhibit – 168 while holding the driver of the S. T. Bus negligent to the extent of 85 per cent. Having gone through the discussion of the Tribunal regarding the aspect of negligence, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly apportioned the negligence on the part of the driver of the S. T. Bus at 85 per cent. I find no reasons to disturb the said conclusion recorded by the Tribunal. 4. So far as the aspect of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has calculated the income under different heads on the basis of the documentary evidence on record. In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while calculating the amount of compensation in each of the claim petitions. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in each of the claim petitions is just and reasonable. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, find no reasons to interfere in these Appeals. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals stands dismissed. No order as to costs. The Cross-objections filed by the original claimants also stands disposed of since the Appeals have FA/344/1989 5/5 JUDGMENT been dismissed. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*