FA/1154/1988 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1154 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: 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 ? ========================================================= MUNAF ISMAILBHAI RADHANPURI - Appellant(s) Versus KANTABEN WD/O.BECHARBHAI MOHANBHAI & 6 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SA BAQUI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MC BHATT for Defendant(s) : 1 - 5. MR NAGIN N GANDHI for Defendant(s) : 2, None for Defendant(s) : 6 - 7. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 12/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident FA/1154/1988 2/4 JUDGMENT Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Narol [for short, “the Tribunal”] in M.A.C. Case No. 246 of 1983 dated 19.12.1985 whereby, the claim petition was partly allowed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that on 06.03.1983, at around 1030 hrs., while deceased Becharbhai Mohanbhai was going towards Saroda from Dholka on a bicycle, an Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. GRS – 4717 and driven by the respondent no. 6 herein, dashed the bicycle of the deceased near Village Mafalipur. As a result of the said accident, Becharbhai Mohanbhai sustained severe bodily injuries and ultimately, succumbed to it. 2.1 Therefore, the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. In the said claim petition, the opponents filed their Written Statements. The Tribunal framed the issues and after hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, passed the impugned award partly allowing the said claim petition. Hence, this Appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. So FA/1154/1988 3/4 JUDGMENT as to prove the aspect of negligence, the original claimants had examined as many as eight witnesses before the Tribunal. From the oral evidence led by Witness No. 2, Trikambhai Kuberbhai [Exhibit – 47] and the medical evidence on record, it is established that victim - Becharbhai Mohabhai had expired as a result of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto-rickshaw. Moreover, the driver of the Auto-rickshaw had not entered the Witness Box before the Tribunal. Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the view that the Tribunal was completely justified in holding the driver of the Auto-rickshaw negligent for the accident in question. 4. While deciding the amount of compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence on record and several other aspects. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded the amount in question, which is just and reasonable. 5. The vehicle in question was insured with respondent no. 7 – Insurance Company. The Insurance Policy of the vehicle was produced on record at Exhibit – 55. According to the said Policy, the liability of respondent no. 7 – FA/1154/1988 4/4 JUDGMENT Insurance Company was limited to Rs.50,000/- only and on that basis the Tribunal has limited the liability of respondent no. 7 – Insurance Company to Rs.50,000/- only. 6. Considering the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was completely justified in partly allowing the claim petition. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this Appeal. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*