FA/1948/2005 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1948 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ============================================================================ 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 - Appellant(s) Versus BHALIBEN WD/O MANGALDAS SHAMBHUDAS PRAJAPATI & 4 - Defendant(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MS MONALI H BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, MR KIRAN C MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 1 - 5. ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 11/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/1948/2005 2/6 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED) 1. This appeal is has been filed by the original opponent of MAC Petition No. 1138/1993 – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment and award dated 8th April, 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.-4), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar, by which, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,63,870/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. 2. The facts of the case are that, on 11.7.1993, Bhalabhai Shambhubhai Nai, driver of ST Bus No. GRS 6944, was driving the said ST Bus in a rash and negligent manner and violating the traffic rules, near Indroda Circle, whereas, deceased Mangaldas Prajapati was coming from Gandhinagar to Ahmedabad on his scooter bearing No. GJ-1-AA-2557 along with one Kalabhai, the farm labour. The deceased was driving his scooter very carefully and at a low speed, while the driver of the ST Bus without showing any signal, took the turn and forcefully dashed with the scooter, due to which, the accident took place and the deceased received serious several injuries and died. So, FIR was also lodged at Gandhinagar Police Station vide CR No. 538/1993 and, thereafter, the claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/-. 3. It was the say of the present opponents – FA/1948/2005 3/6 JUDGMENT original claimants that accident has taken place on 11.7.1993 and on account of injuries, the deceased was immediately taken to the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar and from there, he was transferred to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. That he had suffered serious injuries on his hands, legs, head and other parts of the body due to the accident, he died during the treatment. That the deceased was doing the business of bricks and in the said business, he was also utilised one truck of his ownership and was yielding net income of Rs. 10,000/- per month. That the deceased was young and due to his untimely death, his widow and family members suffered shock, pain and financial difficulty and his business was also affected. That he was a respectable person and died at a young age. That, considering these facts and other documentary evidence, it was submitted to award the amount of compensation. 4. On the question of negligence, the present appellant – original opponent – ST Corporation has raised objection and contended that the application for compensation is false, not maintainable in law and that the accident has occurred between scooter and ST Bus and hence, the present opponent – ori. Claimants have not joined the driver of the scooter, owner and insurance company as parties. That the negligence of the deceased is also required to be considered. Further, there is no evidence produced on record to show that the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident and denied the fact FA/1948/2005 4/6 JUDGMENT that he was doing the business of bricks and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is also denied that the ST Bus No. 6944 was involved and that the accident had taken place on 11.7.1993. It is also denied that the opponents' driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dangerous to human life. In fact, there was a fault of deceased and the deceased was driving the scooter in a rash manner and dashed to the bus on the right side coming from wrong side. It is further contended by the ST Corporation that driver of the scooter was totally negligent and Corporation is not responsible for the said accident. 5. We have perused oral as well as documentary evidence and also considered oral evidence of applicant no. 1 examined at Exh. 18. From the oral evidence, she has tried to establish sole negligence of bus driver. We have perused the facts produced on record. It appears that deceased was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and during the treatment, after 6 days, he died. The deceased was carrying on the business of bricks and also carrying on the transport business in a partnership. We have perused the oral evidence of witness Madhubhai Prajapati, who was pillion rider and eye witness of the incident. From the evidence of panchnama and oral evidence of eye witness produced on record, prima-facie, it appears that bus driver was sole negligent. We have not found anything wrong in the reasons given by the Tribunal establishing that the accident has occurred by rash and negligent driving of bus driver. FA/1948/2005 5/6 JUDGMENT 6. It is contended by the learned advocate Ms. Bhatt for the appellant that judgment and award of the Tribunal is absolute improper, illegal, incorrect and against the evidence on record and facts of the case and contrary to the provisions of law. It is also vehemently contended that bus driver has been wrongly held guilty in the accident. She has also contended that the award is of Rs. 3,63,870/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, so appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award to the extent of Rs. 1 lac. 7. We have gone through the evidence produced on record and considered the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant – ST Corporation and also perused reasons given by the Tribunal. We have not found any illegality committed by the Tribunal. As per the principles laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in several decisions for awarding the claim amount in such type of petitions, we have considered the calculation made by the Tribunal about the income of the deceased and also multiplier applied. We have perused the said ratio and considered the ratio applied by the Apex Court as well as this Court. 8. From the above observation and discussion and consideration of the evidence of original claimants, we have not found any illegality in the case of consideration of negligence as well as income of FA/1948/2005 6/6 JUDGMENT deceased. We have also not found any cause to consider the submission and contention made by the appellant – ST Corporation. The reasons given by the Tribunal when found just and as per law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court, then question of interference cannot arise. In the present case, we are unable to interfere in the findings of the Tribunal as to the income of deceased in the above circumstances. 9. In this view of the matter, this First Appeal stands dismissed. (J. R. VORA, J.) (Z.K. SAIYED, J.) mandora/