FA/761/1986 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 761 of 1986 With CROSS OBJECTION STAMP No. 14271 of 1987 With FIRST APPEAL No. 762 of 1986 To FIRST APPEAL No. 766 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: 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 JASHI D/O.LAXMANJI BHIL & 4 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK RAVAL for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. None for Defendant(s) : 3, 5, MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI FA/761/1986 2/4 JUDGMENT Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These Appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana [for short, “the Tribunal”] in M.A.C.P. Nos. 187/1980, 190/1980 to 192/1980, 219/1980 and 324/1980 dated 18.03.1985 whereby, the said claim petitions were partly allowed. 2. The facts in brief as emerging from the record are as under; 2.1 On 02.02.1980, at about 1430 hrs., an accident took place between an S. T. bus bearing registration No. GRS – 7879 belonging to the appellant – Corporation and a Truck bearing registration No. GTF – 5373 belonging to respondent no. 4 near Village Chatral on the Kadi – Kalol Road. As a result of the said accident, four persons expired and several other sustained bodily injuries. Out of the four persons who had expired in the said accident, three were working as labourers in the said Truck and the fourth person was the driver of the Truck. The legal heirs and representatives of the deceased therefore, filed the respective claim petitions before the Tribunal. The owner of the said Truck FA/761/1986 3/4 JUDGMENT also filed a claim petition for the damages caused to his vehicle. 2.2 As the aforesaid claim petitions had arose from the common accident, the Tribunal consolidated the petitions and disposed them by passing the common impugned judgment and award. Hence, these Appeals. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The only contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant – Corporation is with regard to the aspect of negligence. The panchnama of the place of accident was produced on record vide Mark – 23/2. In Paras – 24 & 25 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has minutely dealt with the said aspect and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the driver of the S. T. Bus was solely negligent for the accident in question. I have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record and more particularly, the panchnama March – 23/2. It also appears from the record that the driver of the S. T. Bus in question has not been examined before the Tribunal for reasons best known to the appellant – Corporation. 4. Considering the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has FA/761/1986 4/4 JUDGMENT rightly held the driver of the S. T. Bus solely negligent for the accident in question. Nothing contrary has been pointed out so as to reverse the findings recorded by the Tribunal. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and hence, find no reasons to interfere in these Appeals. No other contentions have been raised by the appellant. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Since the appeals have been disposed of, the cross objection shall not survive. It also stands disposed of accordingly. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*