FA/1564/1984 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1564 of 1984 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1759 of 1984 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1760 of 1984 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1761 of 1984 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : Sd/- ======================================================= 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 ? ======================================================= GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus MANIBEN WD/ PREMJIBHAI DEVJIBHAI PATEL & 8 - Defendant(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR BN PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1 - 5, 9, MR GAUTAM S PATEL for Defendant(s) : 6, 8, MR MC BHATT for Defendant(s) : 7, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI FA/1564/1984 2/7 JUDGMENT Date : 09/05/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel, Mr.Jigar Raval has produced memo of First Appeal No.1760/1984. Office is directed to reconstruct the appeal memo. 2. As all these appeals arise from the same judgment and award passed by the Learned Tribunal, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. 3. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 31.12.1982 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Himmatnagar, District : Sabarkantha (the Learned Tribunal for short) in in M.A.C.P. Nos.210/1980, 211/1980, 105/1980 and 251/1980 respectively. 4. The facts of the case is that on 25.02.1980 at about 12:15 p.m., an accident took place between Jeep car bearing No.GRJ 1884 and S.T. Bus No.GTH 5274 on Dhoraji-Vadali road, near Samreshwar Pond, wherein relatives of the some persons have lost their lives. Therefore, legal heirs of the deceased by filing the aforesaid M.A.C. FA/1564/1984 3/7 JUDGMENT Petitioners have claimed as mentioned in their respective petitions. 5. Since all the aforesaid M.A.C. Petitions arise out of the same motor vehicular accident , they were heard together and disposed of by the common impugned judgment and award. 6. After having heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the evidence on record, the Learned Tribunal has held both S.T. Driver and Jeep Driver equally contributory negligent and passed the impugned judgment and award. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants have filed above mentioned First Appeals. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in respective matters. Considered the record and proceedings of the Court below. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that looking to the evidence on record, the Tribunal has held both drivers equally negligent and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is FA/1564/1984 4/7 JUDGMENT disproportionate and, hence, the driver of the jeep was not liable and the awarded amount is on the higher side. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and award as well as awarded amount is just, legal and proper and, therefore, the aforesaid appeals deserve to be quashed and set aside. 11. As a result of hearing, I am of the view that the trial court has in detail discussed the matter in paragraph 22 to 26. In paragraph 22, the trial court held as under: 22. From the above referred deposition of the S.T. Bus driver Shri Kantibhai, it is clear that he has tried to place the entire blame for this accident on the driver of the jeep-car; where as the learned advocate for the driver and the owner of the jeep-car has tried to place the entire blame on the driver of the S.T.Bus and the learned advocates for the petitioners have tried to find fault with the drivers of both the vehicles for this accident. It is pertinent to note that the driver of the jeep-car has not cared to come forward to give evidence on oath before this Tribunal. He might have escaped from criminal liability in the criminal case filed against him by the police but his acquittal in the criminal case is not relevant for deciding the question of his civil negligence. Similarly the driver of the S.T.Bus cannot escape his liability for civil negligence on the ground that he was not prosecuted by the police for FA/1564/1984 5/7 JUDGMENT criminal offences arising out of this accident. Filing of a charge-sheet by the police against the driver of only one vehicle is not a criteria to absolve the driver of the other vehicle from his civil negligence. No authority is required to be cited in support of this proposition of law. In this case, it is proved from the evidence on record that both the vehicles were coming from the opposite direction and they dashed against each other on the road between Dharoi and Vadali. The evidence of the panch witness Laljibhai Patel (P.W.No.5) read with the panchnama ex.74 shows that the road at the place of this accident goes from east to west and is a tar road. The width of the tar road at the place of this accident is four metres, that is a kutcha road and the width of the kutcha road on each side is of two metres, that is about six feet. There is a curve on that road towards the eastern direction of the place of this accident. The S.T. Bus and the jeep-car involved in this accident were found stationary when the panchnama ex.74 was drawn on 25-2-80 at about 4.30 p.m. The S.T. Bus was on the northern side of the road with its front portion towards east. The S.T. Bus was on the kutcha road. Three road guards on the northern side of the road were broken due to the impact of the S.T.Bus and the bus had proceeded beyond those road guards. The front side had light and the side light of the S.T.Bus were damaged and their glass were broken. The jeep-car was lying on the southern side of the road with its front portion towards west at the time of making the panchnama. The jeep-car was also damaged and two rods of its hood were broken and were lying loose near the jeep-car. The damage to the jeep-car was assessed at Rs.2000/- approximately, vide paras- 1, 2 and 3 of the deposition ex.73 of the panch witness and the panchnama ex.74. From the FA/1564/1984 6/7 JUDGMENT above referred evidence of the panch witness, it is proved that both the vehicles were damaged due to the practically head-on collision of course, the jeep-car and the S.T.Bus proceeded to some extent in its respective direction after the collision and that shows that the right side portion of the jeep-car brushed against the right side front portion of the S.T.Bus. Therefore, it can be presumed that both the drivers of both the vehicles could have averted this accident by showing extra care and caution while driving the respective vehicle on such a narrow, road. Under the circumstances, both the drivers of both the vehicles must be held equally negligent in their act of driving the motor vehicles. It is difficult to believe that both the vehicles were running at slow speed but it appears that both the vehicles were running at an excessive speed just before the actual collision. Considering from all points of view, I am convinced that this is a case of composite negligence of both the drivers of both the vehicles but at the same time, it can be said that both the drivers have contributed equally by showing the equal degree of negligence. I, therefore, hold the driver of the S.T.Bus as well as the driver of the jeep-car equally rash and negligent for this accident. The petitioners' case that the deceased Premjibhai Devjibhai died as a result of the injuries suffered by him in this accident is proved from the evidence of P.W.No.1 – Maniben, P.W.No.3, Virjibhai and the P.M. Examination notes ex.103. The petitioners' case that the deceased boy Arjanbhai died as a result of injuries sustained by him in this accident is proved from the evidence of P.W.No.-Gangaben read with P.M. Examination notes ex.66. The petitioners' case that the deceased Baluben died as a result of injuries sustained by her in this accident is proved from the FA/1564/1984 7/7 JUDGMENT evidence of P.W.No.2-Laxmanji-P.W.No.3- Virjibhai and the P.M. Examination notes ex.65. The Issue No.1 in all the four cases is thus decided in the affirmative, but the negligence of the driver of the S.T.Bus is fixed at 50% and the negligence of the driver of the jeep-car is also fixed at 50% though the petitioners have successfully proved that it was the composite negligence of both the drivers of both the vehicles. It is true that in the case of composite negligence wrong doers are other than the injured or the deceased persons and the wrong doers are jointly and severally liable. But in this case, I have fixed the extent of the negligence of each driver at 50% because both the drivers are found equally negligent. 12. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is warranted. 13. In the premises aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /patil