FA/298/1998 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 298 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================= = 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 ? ========================================= = GSRTC Versus LILABEN WD/O GULABSINH BARIA- KOLI AND OTHERS ========================================= =Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for the Appellant MR PJ KANABAR for Defendant Nos. : 1,5 - 6. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2 - 4, 7, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 11/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) FA/298/1998 2/3 JUDGMENT 1. Present First Appeal has been filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment and award dated 7th May,1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1062 of 1990. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the GSRTC urged that it was a case where the victim was responsible for accident. It was in the circumstances where the moped rider, a SRP constable, tried to overtake a truck and in the process, collided with the bus. It was the indiscreet action of the victim that the accident has taken place. 3. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of facts have wrongly held that bus of the appellant was on the erring side. We have been taken through the order of the Tribunal. For the claimant, Savitriben Kantibhai has been examined- an independent witness. As against it, the driver of the bus has been examined. He was an interested witness. Ordinarily, a moped is too small a vehicle to adopt a speed or a stance having a very small vehicle. 4. The findings of the Tribunal are biased on facts. The appreciation of evidence on this count cannot be said to be such which can be called against the cannons of justice. Thus, on this count, no interference is called for. 5. Then, the learned counsel canvassed the question of quantum. The deceased was a constable. He had agricultural land at his disposal. He had bright prospects of promotion, etc.. In any case, in Government service, there are incentives, FA/298/1998 3/3 JUDGMENT which make a man comfortable in life. In this background, the dependency and multiplier do not appear to be disproportionate, more particularly when future income has been seen in to it. 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 7. Record and proceedings be sent to the court below immediately. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) omkar