FA/1094/1988 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1094 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1095 of 1988 To FIRST APPEAL No. 1096 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 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 ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus ABDULAZIZ ALABUX SHAIKH & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MD PANDYA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Defendant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, 4, MS AMEE YAJNIK for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 15/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/1094/1988 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the common judgment and order dated 10/9/1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in the Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.561 of 1983, 591 of 1983, 825 of 1983 and 1017 of 1983 whereby the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has partly allowed three petitions and awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.98,715/- in the MACP No.561 of 1983, Rs.3,725/- in MACP No.591 of 1983 and Rs.84,000/- in MACP No.825 of 1983, in all, along with proportionate costs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The Tribunal has dismissed MACP No.1017 of 1983 which is filed by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of these appeals are as under: 2.1) Four claim petitions under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act arose out of single accident involving two vehicles i.e. passenger bus bearing registration No.GRR 8563 which is owned by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and a truck bearing registration No.GTK 3878. In the said accident one person died and two persons have received injuries. Therefore, one petition is filed by the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased FA/1094/1988 3/5 JUDGMENT Shri Suryakant Chimanlal Makwana. The applicants of the Motor Accident Claim Petitions have claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.9,999/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively. 2.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as stated above in three petitions and dismissed one petition. Hence, these appeals. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the amount of compensation and also erred in considering the liability for negligence of the parties. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main issue raised before the Court below was regarding the aspect of negligence and quantum of compensation. While considering the panchnama of the place of accident, the evidence of the driver of the ST Bus, the Tribunal has made detailed discussion in para 8 and 9. Consideration of the Tribunal in para 8 and 9 of the judgment reads as under: “4.1) When the accident took place, the bus was FA/1094/1988 4/5 JUDGMENT completely on the wrong side of the road and for the purpose of avoiding the occurrence of the accident, the driver had tried to take it down the edge of the road, with the result that it was taken on the kaccha strip of land beyond the right hand side of the road of the bus. The driver of the bus has admitted that when the accident took place there was no truck ahead of him. 4.2) It was found on the left hand side of the truck with its face towards Nadiad. So, the passenger bus was completely on the wrong side of the road. The front left hand side wheel of wheel of truck was on the left hand side edge of the road and the front left hand side wheel was also adjacent touching that wheel of the truck. So, the bus had climbed down that side of the road. That was the western part of the position of both the vehicles after the occurrence of the accident clearly attract the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The driver of the passenger bus had admitted certain important facts which are practically consistent with the position of both the vehicles as stated in the panchnama. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the driver of the passenger bus was completely rash and negligent and that was responsible for the occurrence of the accident whereas the driver of the truck was not at all responsible for the occurrence of the accident because at the time of the occurrence of the accident he was driving the vehicle from the correct side of the road and the truck after accident was found on the correct side of the road. 5. Considering the documentary evidence on record, I am of the view the the Court below has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation is just and proper FA/1094/1988 5/5 JUDGMENT which requires to be approved and therefore, the same is approved. I am in complete agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. The accident was occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST bus. No case is made out to interfere. Hence, all these appeals deserve to be dismissed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)