FA/2168/1983 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2168 of 1983 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= SHAH MANSUKHLAL HIRCHAND JAIN - Appellant(s) Versus AMARSINGH TAPUBHA & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR CH VORA for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 04/08/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgement and award dated 10.09.1982 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Kutch at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 102 of 1981 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 12,210/- with proportionate costs alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable to the original claimants by the opponents jointly and severally. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.1980 the claimant wanted to travel in Mundra-Bhuj bus. The bus was FA/2168/1983 2/3 JUDGMENT taken to work-shop before coming to the bus-stand. Claimant occupied seat No. 27 near the left side of the window in the bus. There were some pillars in between the workshop and the bus-stand. The driver was taking the bus from the work-shop to the bus stand and the claimant was sitting keeping his hand on the window. At that time injury was caused to his elbow joint which resulted into the fracture. The claimant was brought to Bhuj Hospital where he was admitted, treated and operated and was under plaster for three months. Therefore he claimed to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that the bus driver was so negligent that the bus had dashed against the pillar causing injury to the appellant who was sitting inside the bus resting his elbow on the window and merely because he was resting his hand so, it cannot be said that there was any contributory negligence on his part. 4. I have gone through the judgement and award of the Trial Court. It is made clear that the panchnama of the bus and pillar was drawn and the copy of it is at Ex. 17. From the contents of the panchnama it is not possible to make out that the principle of Res ipse FA/2168/1983 3/3 JUDGMENT loquitor can be made applicable. It may be noted that the claimant took the seat in the bus from the workshop as stated by the driver in his evidence. The conductor had not taken the charge of the said bus and therefore, he could not have taken the seat in the bus before it was put on the platform. Therefore it is made clear that claimant had take the seat before the bus came to the bus stand. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot claim for any relief. Therefore appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. In the premises aforesaid the appeal is dismissed. The cross-objection which is filed with this appeal is also dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Suresh*