FA/1816/1988 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1816 of 1988 To FIRST APPEAL NO.1819 OF 1988 With CROSS OBJECTION NO.23 OF 2006 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 ? ========================================================= GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN - Appellant(s) Versus HARSHADBHAI PREMCHANDBHAI PARIKH & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, MR JASHBHAI P PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1, MS SONAL M PATEL for Defendant(s) : 2, MR AV TRIVEDI for Defendant(s) : 3, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 24/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/1816/1988 2/3 JUDGMENT 1. The above appeals are directed against common judgment and award dated 28th April 1988 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol in Motor Accident Claim Cases No.20/93, 89/83, 447/83 and 757/83 whereby the claim petitions were partially allowed. 2. On 1.8.1982 on the highway running between Varvala to Dandhuka near village Rojid, when the S.T. Bus was proceeding towards Dhandhuka from Barvala and when the abovesaid truck was proceeding from Dhandhuka to Barvala, both the vehicles collided with one another and as a result the passengers travelling in the S.T. Bus sustained injuries and 9 passengers expired. Various claim petitions were filed including the above claim petitions. The present appeals are at the instance of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. 3. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is with regard to contributory negligence. It was argued that the Tribunal committed an error in in holding that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the truck driver only. 4. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in Issue No.1 from paragraphs 63 to 66. The Tribunal found that there was head on collision between the vehicles in the mids of the road and none of the driver tried to avoid the accident. It was also found that both the drivers were on the wrong side. The Tribunal FA/1816/1988 3/3 JUDGMENT ultimately found that there was head on collision between the two vehicles in the midst of the road and both the drivers were equally negligent. I am in complete agreement agreement with the reasoning adopted and finding arrived at by the Tribunal. The above appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. In view of the fact that appeals are dismissed, the cross-objection is also dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar