FA/1248/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1248 of 1987 With CROSS OBJECTION No.55 of 2008 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. ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus CHITUBHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, MR AJ PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Gujarat State Road FA/1248/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT Transport Corporation, original opponent no.2 has challenged the judgment and order dated 12/11/1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Vadodara in the Motor Accident Claim Application No.307 of 1983 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the application and awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.1,36,730/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realization with proportionate costs. 2. The claimant has also filed cross objection for additional amount and prayed for enhancement of the amount of award. 3. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal are as under: 2.1) The Motor Vehicle Accident was occurred on 23/10/1982 at about 3:00 p.m. near village Sathod under the Dabhoi Taluka of Baroda District because of the collision of the ST Bus No.GRR 2449 and the motor cycle No.GJN 4549 as a result of which the applicant Chitubhai Becharbhai had sustained certain injuries and the motor cycle belonging to other applicant Navinchandarabhai was badly damaged. 2.2) The Tribunal framed issues and on completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,36,730/- in MACP Case No.307 of 1983 as stated above. FA/1248/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken on record the evidence produced before the Tribunal and contended that the accident was occurred due to contributory negligence and also contended on the part of quantum of compensation that the amount of award is on higher side. For the same, the Tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the accident was occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST Bus and also after considering the evidence on record awarded the amount of compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention raised raised by the appellant is with regard to the aspect of negligence. The Tribunal has mainly relied upon the documentary evidence. From the documentary evidence, it transpires that the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST Bus. While considering the aspect of quantum of compensation also, the Tribunal has awarded just and proper amount of compensation after considering the documentary evidence on record. No other contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. FA/1248/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT 6. Considering the documentary evidence on record, I am of the view the the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation is just and proper which requires to be approved. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the the Tribunal and hence find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. As the Appeal is dismissed, Cross Objection No.55 of 2008 does not survive. Hence, the Cross Objection No.55 of 2008 also stands disposed of. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)