FA/1815/1990 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1815 of 1990 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1816 of 1990 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 MAHENDRAKUMAR R PATEL & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are directed against the judgement and award dated 31st March 1990 passed by Motor Accident Claims tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra in MACP No.744/85 and 745/85 by the Gujarat FA/1815/1990 2/3 JUDGMENT State Road Transport Corporation. The Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petitions. 2. On 27.4.1985 Dipakkumar Ravjibhai Patel, applicant of MACP No.745/85 and Mahendrakumar Ramanlal Pate, applicant of MACP No.744/85 were coming on a scooter from Shivrajpur side. When they reached Pavagadh the S.T. Bus came in excessive speed and dashed with the scooter as a result of which both the applicants fell down and sustained injuries. Hence the aforesaid claim petitions were filed which were partly allowed. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the S.T. Driver was negligent. While considering the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has discussed the same in paras 6 to 14 and clearly found that the S.T. Driver was rash and negligent. Nothing contrary has been pointed out to take a different view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. 4. The appellant was directed to deposit the full amount. If the said amount is not withdrawn by the claimant 50% of the same will be allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant and the balance will be paid to the owner and the insurer of the rickshaw. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] FA/1815/1990 3/3 JUDGMENT ar