FA/1052/1990 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1052 of 1990 To FIRST APPEAL No. 1055 of 1990 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 ? ========================================================= GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN - Appellant(s) Versus CHAMPABEN TULSIDAS & 8 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KN RAVAL for Appellant(s) : 1,MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SURESH M SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 7. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 8, MR DARSHAN M PARIKH for Defendant(s) : 9, MS AVANI S MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 9, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/1052/1990 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. These Appeals are directed against the common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot [for short, “the Tribunal”] in M.A.C. Case Nos. 644/1985, 652/1985, 675/1985, 678/1985 to 682/1985, 688/1985, 696/1985, 752/1985, 69/1986, 87/1986 and 164/1986 dated 24.04.1989 whereby, M.A.C. Case No. 69/1986 was dismissed and the other claim petitions were partly allowed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are as under; 2.1 On 02.11.1985, at around 0630 hrs., while Chagan Nanjibhai Dhamecha was traveling in a S. T. Bus bearing registration No. GRU – 7040, it met with an accident with a Matador bearing registration No. GRP – 4681 and driven by respondent no. 6, near Village Mahika Patiya on the Bhavnagar – Rajkot Highway. As a result of the said accident, said Chagan Nanjibhai Dhamecha expired and many passengers traveling in the said S. T. Bus sustained severe bodily injuries. The Driver and Cleaner of the Matador in question also sustained severe bodily injuries. 2.2 Therefore, the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased as also the injured persons filed claim petitions before the Tribunal. In all, fourteen claim petitions came FA/1052/1990 3/5 JUDGMENT to be filed. In the said claim petitions, the opponents filed their Written Statements. The Tribunal framed the issues. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, it dismissed M.A.C. Case No. 69/1986 and partly allowed the other claim petitions. 2.3 These Appeals have been filed by Original Opponent No. 2 – Corporation against the common impugned award passed in M.A.C. Case No. 644/1985, 652/1985, 69/1986 and 87/1986 respectively. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. On the basis of the evidence on record, more particularly, the panchnama of the place of accident at Exhibit – 44, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place on account of the negligence of both the drivers. The said conclusion has been arrived at since the panchnama of the place of accident clearly indicated that it was a head-on collision between the two vehicles and that it took place in a curve on the main road. Both the drivers could see the vehicle coming from the other side from a reasonable distance. However, on account of their negligence, the head-on collision took place. Considering the evidence on FA/1052/1990 4/5 JUDGMENT record, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was completely justified in holding the drivers of both the vehicles equally negligent for the accident. 4. It is true that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. However, the said aspect has to be considered in the background of the fact that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the aspect of future increase in the income. Now, even if the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors. reported in 1996(4) S.C.C. Page 362 is relied upon for computing the income, the final amount would remain the same. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. 5. Considering the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was completely justified in partly allowing the claim petitions and dismissing M.A.C. Case No. 69/1986. 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 these Appeals. FA/1052/1990 5/5 JUDGMENT 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals stands dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*