FA/1443/1985 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1443 of 1985 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 ? =================================== GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus CHAUHAN CHANSING VAGATSING & 5 - Defendant(s) =================================== Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, MS GUPTA FOR MR YN OZA for Defendant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2 - 5. MR HEMANT S SHAH for Defendant(s) : 6, =================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI FA/1443/1985 2/4 JUDGMENT Date : 22/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 30th November 1984 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Aux), Vadodara, in Motor Accident Claim Application No.112 of 1983 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.55,750/- to the claimants with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. At the relevant time the son of the applicant was traveling by Matador van from Baroda towards Ahmedabad. While the said matador reached near the culvert of Fajalpur village, one ST bus came with excessive speed from Ahmedabad side . On account of its excessive speed the bus driver could not control the vehicle as a result of which it came on the wrong side and dashed with the front portion of the van. On account of this the driver, cleaner and the deceased sustained serious bodily injuries. The son of the applicant later on succumbed to the injuries. The applicant has therefore filed the aforesaid claim application claiming compensation in the sum of Rs.3 lacs against which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of FA/1443/1985 3/4 JUDGMENT Rs.55,750/-. It is against this judgement and award the present appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Raval, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the ST bus and therefore the appellant is not liable to satisfy the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Ms. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the original claimant submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects in detail and no interference of this Hon’ble Court is warranted in this appeal. 5. It is required to be noted that the appellant has not challenged the impugned judgement and award on the aspect of quantum of compensation. 6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and gone through the relevant record including the record and proceedings. The Tribunal has discussed about the issue of act of the driver of the ST Bus in paragraph 13 and 14 of the judgement. The Tribunal has also referred the details of the panchnama at Exh.68. The details of the panchnama clearly show that the driver FA/1443/1985 4/4 JUDGMENT of the bus was negligent. The Tribunal observed that the driver of a heavy vehicle like bus is expected to exercise much more care and caution in the act of driving the bus and this is a case wherein there has been failure on the part of the driver of the bus to exercise the standard of care as was expected of a driver of a bus. Learned Advocate for the appellant is not able to point out any evidence on record to show that the Tribunal was in error in taking such a view and that the driver of the van was negligent. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal in this regard and no interference is warranted in the appeal. Even otherwise the award is of a sum of Rs.55000/- and looking to the smallness of the amount also this is not a fit case to cause interference. 7. No other contentions are raised. 8. In the premises aforesaid the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar