FA/1698/1988 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1698 of 1988 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 COPR - Appellant(s) Versus CHANDRABEN WD/O BHAGWANDAS BIHARILAL SHARMA & 11 - Defendant(s) =================================== Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 12. =================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 FA/1698/1988 2/3 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 7th March 1988 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in MAC Petition No.149 of 1985 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,42,500/-. 2. One Bhagwandas Biharilal had hired one car taxi and was traveling in that vehicle. An S.T. Bus dashed with the said car as a result of which Biharilal sustained injuries and later on succumbed to the said injuries. The legal heirs of said Biharilal filed the aforesaid claim petition which was partly allowed. 3. In the present appeal the main contention raised is with regard to negligence. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is found that the Tribunal has discussed this issue in paragraphs 51 to 53 and has come to the conclusion that the accident has happened due to negligence of the S.T. driver. Nothing is pointed out to take a different view of the matter. 4. As regards the quantum part is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed the same in paragraphs 54 to 58 and the Tribunal has FA/1698/1988 3/3 JUDGMENT considered oral as well as documentary evidence. I am of the view that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income and other aspects of the matter and no case is made out to interfere with the quantum aspect. 5. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar