FA/1009/1986 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1009 of 1986 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 ? =================================== AMINABIBI WIDOW OF YUSUF VALI MOHMAD LUHAR & 3 - Appellant(s) Versus ABDULSATTAR ABDULLA CHHOTA & 2 - Defendant(s) =================================== Appearance : MR DF AMIN for Appellant(s) : 1 - 4. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Defendant(s) : 3, =================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 12/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/1009/1986 2/3 JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 15th January 1986 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surat, in MACP No.522 of 1983 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,90,600 and directed the original opponent nos.1 and 2 to pay the said amount to the claimants and exonerated the Insurance Company from its liabilities to satisfy the Award. 2. On 10.6.1983 Yusuf Valimahamad Luhar was traveling in Motor Truck No.GRY/3014 along with his goods as hirer of the truck. When the said truck reached near village Palsana on National Highway No.6 in Surat District, the driver of the truck lost control and truck turned turtle. The owner of the goods Valimohammad Luhar sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs have therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition and the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award. 3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the deceased was not traveling as owner of goods in the truck. 4. As a result of hearing it is evident that the Tribunal has discussed the matter in detail in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the FA/1009/1986 3/3 JUDGMENT judgment. However, the finding is that the deceased had hired the truck for transporting his iron dust from Bombay. It was found that the offending truck was a goods vehicle and passengers on payment of far or otherwise were not allowed. It was proved that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal has rightly not believed the evidence of the cleaner as the evidence shows otherwise. 5. Learned Advocate has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manchhiben Wd/o Ishvarbhai Chhitubhai, reported in1999 (2) GLR 1753. I am of the view that the driver is the agent of the owner and in case of omission on the part of the driver the owner is liable. Hence the aforesaid decision would not be of no assistance to the appellant. 6. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and no case is made out to cause interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar