FA/4194/2001 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4194 of 2001 With FIRST APPEAL No. 4195 of 2001 With FIRST APPEAL No. 4196 of 2001 With CROSS OBJECTION No. 73 of 2008 With CROSS OBJECTION No. 74 of 2008 With CROSS OBJECTION No. 75 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. - Appellant Versus NANDINIBEN NAYANKUMAR PATEL & 7 - Defendants ========================================================= Appearance : MR DAKSHESH MEHTA for Appellant : 1, MR SANDIP C SHAH for Defendants : 1 - 4. NOTICE SERVED for Defendants : 5 - 6, 8, SERVED BY AFFIX.(N) for Defendant: 7, MR HM BHAGAT for Defendant: 8, ========================================================= FA/4194/2001 2/4 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 25/08/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present First Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the common judgment and Award passed by learned MACT(Aux), Ahmedabad City in MACP No. 529 of 1997 to 531 of 1997 dated 19.06.2001. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the driver of the car was negligent in driving the car. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that there was break mark of tyre of the car on road, where the accident has taken place and three persons were died in the said accident. 3. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company itself suggests that the car driver was so vigilant and had taken all steps by applying break and because of applying break, there was mark of break on the road for FA/4194/2001 3/4 JUDGMENT about 52 feet and therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the car was not vigilant and there was negligence on the part of driver as the car in question being Cello (a second generation car), which would be considered to be in excessive speed, dashed with a truck, which was parked in the middle of the road without any signal or reflector as per the traffic rules. It is expected that the car would run in such a speed on highway and therefore, the negligence pleaded on the part of driver is not required to be entertained. 4. The second contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that quantum awarded is excessive. Out of three persons, who died in an accident, one person namely deceased Nayanbhai was having decree in homeopathy and Surgery and he was aged about 32 years, the second person namely deceased Rohitbhai was a Partner in one partnership firm namely Krishna Printers and he was having 35% share and he was aged about 43 years, and the third person namely Vinodbhai was manufacturing valve pump and spare parts and he was a Partner in the partnership firm viz. M/s. Kirit Industries and he was aged about 42 years. Thus, all the three deceased persons are in good profession and business. Deceased Nayanbhai was having a decree in homeopathy and Surgery and practicing in medicine, which is now-a-days established with FA/4194/2001 4/4 JUDGMENT allopathy. 5. We have gone through the records and findings of the Tribunal. We find no perversity in the findings reached by the Tribunal in awarding the amount of compensation. 6. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed Cross Objections for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Once we come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Tribunal is not required to be interfered, the cross-objections filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are required to be dismissed. 7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the First Appeals and Cross Objections are meritless and deserve no consideration. The findings of the Tribunal is confirmed. In the result, all the aforesaid First Appeals and Cross-objections deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. [BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.] [S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.] pallav