FA/1069/1988 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1069 of 1988 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. ========================================================= BALVINDAR KAUR SUKHDEVSINGH JHAT & 3 - Appellant(s) Versus V S METHEW & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DR BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1 - 4. None for Defendant(s) : 1, MS AVANI S MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 15/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 23/12/1987 passed by the Motor FA/1069/1988 2/4 JUDGMENT Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad at Navsari in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.260 of 1985 whereby the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.54,000/- along with proportionate costs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal is as under: 2.1) In the Motor Accident Claim Application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants-heirs of Shri Sukhdevsinh claimed compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- on account of the accident took place on 1/12/1984 at 6:00 a.m. near Ganesh Sisodara as a result of which the cleaner of the truck Shri Sukhdevsinh No.MTT 9959 expired. The truck is belonging to opponent no.1 and at the time of accident the truck was driven by opponent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed with a tree as a result of which the cleaner of the truck expired on the spot. 2.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.54,000/- as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has mainly contended FA/1069/1988 3/4 JUDGMENT that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the amount of compensation under the different heads and also erred in awarding amount of compensation after considering the age of the deceased. 4. 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 truck. After considering the facts of the case, the Tribunal has held that the driver of the truck was liable for the accident. Considering the quantum part of compensation, the Tribunal has discussed the matter in detail and awarded just and proper amount of compensation. 5. 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 which requires to be 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 truck. No case is made out to interfere. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. FA/1069/1988 4/4 JUDGMENT 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)