FA/1083/1985 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1083 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus BAI KALIBEN WD/O.RATNABHAI VIRYA & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MD PANDYA for Appellant(s) : 1, MS TANUJA N KACHCHHI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. None for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 23/08/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgement and award dated 16.10.1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 278 of 1982 whereby the original opponents were directed to pay the original applicants an amount of Rs. 53,000/- together with running interest at the rate of 6% per annum. FA/1083/1985 2/5 JUDGMENT 2. The short facts of the case are that on 13.0431982 at about 8.00 p.m. one Ratanbhai Viriyabhai was run over by S.T. Bus bearing Registration No. G.R.T. 6807 while that bus was driven in the reverse direction by the original opponent No. 1. Ratanbhai died on the spot as a result of this accident. Therefore the legal heirs of the deceased filed the claim petition of Rs. 70,000/- by way of compensation. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that there were about 35 passengers waiting for the bus and before the bus would reached the electric pole, the passengers in a hurry had rushed towards the bus and had begun scramble to enter the bus and at that time opponent No. 1 heard shouts and immediately stopped the bus and had then seen that Ratnabhai was run over by the left side back wheel of the bus and had died on the spot, thus the Tribunal has erred in not observing from the evidence of opponent No. 1 that it was deceased who was FA/1083/1985 3/5 JUDGMENT responsible for the said accident and that the opponent No. 1 had taken all care and precaution on his part. 3.1 He further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the original opponent No. 1 had not stated in his FIR that he was driving the bus in the reverse direction following the bell signals given by the conductor and that horn was also blown by opponent No. 1 while driving he bus. 4. I have gone through the judgement and award of the Tribunal. While passing the judgement Tribunal has observed as under: “The evidence furnished by Bokhabhai Makanbhai at Ex. 29 shows that at about 8.00 p.m. The bus had arrived from Palej and had first stopped at a short distance from the electric pole serving as the bus stop and was then began to be driven in the reverse direction. It may be repeated that, according to Bokhabhai, he himself and the deceased were at that time, sitting on the bank of the village pond at a short distance from the electric pole. The original opponent No. 1 had FA/1083/1985 4/5 JUDGMENT started driving the bus in the reverse direction all of a sudden and he had not heard the ringing of the bell of the bus or its horn before the bus was started to be driven in the reverse direction and while it was being driven in the reverse direction. The deceased was sitting with his back towards the direction from which the bus was arriving and the conductor had kept sitting in the bus while it was being driven in the reverse direction. The deceased was run over by the off side backwheel of the bus and had died on the spot. Therefore it is clear that the accident occurred on the negligence of the driver of the bus.” Even if the contention of the original opponent No. 1 regarding scramble by the passengers put forth by the opponent No. 1 for the first escape the charge of negligence is required to be accepted, it is required to be noted that if the driver finds that bus is being driven in the reverse direction, it is his obvious duty to stop the bus immediately and to see that the passengers are removed to a safe distance and only then toe resume driving the bus in the reverse direction. To ensure this is also the duty of the conductor of the bus. FA/1083/1985 5/5 JUDGMENT Moreover, it is well admitted that the place was not a well lighted place and it was a place where there is a village bus stop. Any prudent driver was, therefore, expected to know that some passengers might be standing or sitting near the bus stop and that required him to be extremely careful while the bus was being driven in the reverse direction. 5. In the premises aforesaid the appeal is dismissed. The cross objection which was filed by the claimant is also dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Suresh*