FA/358/1983 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 358 of 1983 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. ========================================================= GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN - Appellant(s) Versus SADARBIBI D/O BHULMIYA JABARMIYA & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MD PANDYA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR JD AJMERA for Defendant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 2, (MR MH SHAIKH) for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, original opponent no.2 has challenged FA/358/1983 2/4 JUDGMENT the judgment and order dated 31/3/1982 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Kheda at Nadiad in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.86 of 1980 whereby the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.14,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal is as under: 2.1) The claim petition is filed because of the fatal accident in which one Bhchumiya Bhulamiya died. The accident took place on 12/11/1979. Vehicle involved in the accident is S.T. Bus No.GTE 5938. It is contended by the petitioners that the bus was driven by the opponent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The bus is owned by opponent no.2. Because of the accident, the deceased fell down and received injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He was kept in Nadiad Hospital and he died in the hospital. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the death of Bachumiya Bhulamiya. 2.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.14,500/- as stated above. Hence, this appeal. FA/358/1983 3/4 JUDGMENT 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is on higher side. 4. From the evidence of applicant no.1, it is clear that the she is sister of the deceased and she is staying with him. From her cross examination, she has stated that after death of her husband, she was staying with her brother. 5. Keeping in mind the reasoning of the Tribunal and evidence of the applicant no.1-widow sister of the deceased, it seems that she is entitled for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main issue raised before the Court below was regarding the aspect of negligence. The Court below 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. 7. Considering the documentary evidence on record, I am of the view the the Court below has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation is just and proper FA/358/1983 4/4 JUDGMENT which requires to be approved and therefore, the same is approved. I am in complete agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. The accident was occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST bus. No case is made out to interfere. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Even otherwise the amount awarded is less than Rs.25,000/-. 9. This appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed on the ground that it represents a petty claim, without entering into the merits of the matter with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)