FA/366/1990 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 366 of 1990 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15011 of 2007 In CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 10763 of 2007 In CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR BRINGING HEIRS No. 15011 of 2007 With Cross-Objection (Stamp Number) No.14900 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 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 & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus VINABEN WD/O.SURENDRABHAI SHANTILAL & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MD PANDYA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR AMAR N BHATT for Defendant(s) : 1, MR SN SOPARKAR for Defendant(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 09/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Arguing the present appeal under the erstwhile provisions of Section 110D of the Motor FA/366/1990 2/4 JUDGMENT Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, “the Act”), it was submitted at the bar that Cross Objection (Stamp Number) No.14900 of 1991 were also filed by the original claimants, respondents herein, and learned counsel were heard in that regard as well. 2. The appeal is preferred from judgment and order dated 13.07.1989 of M.A.C.T., Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.71 of 1986, whereunder the claimants were awarded Rs.3,79,000/- as compensation with cost and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of depositing the amount in the Court. It was, however, stipulated that if the awarded amount were deposited within two months from the date of award, the interest would be calculated at the rate of 9% instead of 12% p.a., by way of concession. 3. The short facts of the case are that deceased-Surendrabhai, aged 39, was employed as a clerk in Bank of Baroda at monthly salary of Rs.2605.60 with other benefits. On 25.11.1985, at about 5:00 pm. while he was going towards Sarkhej from Vasna on a moped, he collided with the bus of the appellant and, having been thrown away and seriously injured, he succumbed to his injuries after 21 days of treatment and suffering. The claim for compensation was made FA/366/1990 3/4 JUDGMENT by his widow, minor son aged 9 and mother aged 65. 4. It was vehemently argued for the appellant that having regard to the deposition of the eye-witness and the driver of the bus as also the Panchnama of the scene of accident, some negligence was required to be attributed to the deceased. Ms.Desai argued that while the bus was a bigger vehicle proceeding on the main road, it was the duty of the deceased to slow down and apply his brakes when he was entering the main road; and if he were careful, the accident could have been avoided. It was, however, seen from record that the bus was driven at such excessive speed that it made brake marks on the road for about 65 feet and it was also found to be on the wrong side of the road at the point of accident. The driver of the bus had examined himself in evidence and his deposition could not inspire any confidence. Therefore, no reason could be found to interfere with the finding of fact that the driver of the bus was negligent and no contributory negligence could be attributed to the deceased. No other ground was made out to interfere with the quantum of compensation either on behalf of the appellant or on behalf of the cross-objectionist. Therefore, the appeal as well as the cross-objection are dismissed with no FA/366/1990 4/4 JUDGMENT order as to costs. Civil Application No.15011 of 2007 was not pressed in view of dismissal of the appeal and accordingly, it also stands disposed with no order as to costs. Office shall show Cross-Objection (Stamp Number) No.14900 of 1991 as also disposed by this judgment. (D.H.WAGHELA, J.) Hitesh