FA/67/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 67 of 1987 With FIRST APPEAL No. 68 of 1987 To FIRST APPEAL No. 72 of 1987 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. ===================================================================== YAKUBHAI ABRAHIM MUSLIM DESAI Versus SHANABHAI BEHMABHAI DIDOL AND OTHERS ===================================================================== Appearance : MR DF AMIN for Appellant. MR NIKHIL VYAS for MR BM MANGUKIYA for Respondent Nos.1 - 2. NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No.3. MR BR SHAH for Respondent No.4. ===================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 15/05/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the common judgment and order dated 23/12/1985 passed by the FA/67/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (Main) Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.745 of 1983 along with Motor Accident Claim Petitions Nos.747 of 1983 to 751 of 1983 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has partly allowed all the claim petitions and awarded compensation. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal are as under: 2.1) The group of six claim petitions arose out of the same accident. The case is that the opponent no.2 had kept a contract for Panam Dam site works for which he was engaging labourers. On the day of incident, deceased Jesingbhai Shanabhai and other injured labourers were going to the dam site in a trolly bearing registration no.GRZ-925 attached to a Tractor bearing registration no.GAF-9327. The said Tractor was being driven rashly and negligently with an excessive speed. On account of which the opponent no.1 lost control over the vehicle and the Tractor dashed with a nearby construction and turned turtle. All the labourers were thrown off and sustained serious injuries. Therefore, all the claim petitions are filed for recovery of compensation. FA/67/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT 2.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has partly allowed all the claim petitions and awarded compensation. Hence these appeals. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute that the Tractor along with a Trailer were involved in the accident in question. The insurance policy of the said vehicle was produced on record of the Tribunal vide Exh.25. The said insurance policy does not make any mention about the carrying of passengers or labourers in the said vehicle. Indisputably, the Tractor meant to be used for agricultural work and at any event it is not meant for carrying passengers. The Policy-Exh.25 also does not mention that the said vehicle was meant for agricultural use. 4. These appeals are filed by the owner,original opponent no.2, who has appeared before the Tribunal and has not filed any written statement. Thus, liability of owner was disputed only at the time of oral arguments. 5. In my view, the party, who has not filed written statement before the tribunal cannot be allowed to raise this contention for the first time before this Court, otherwise, it will affect the rights of other parties. Therefore, I have not considered any of the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant in as much as FA/67/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT claimants and/or Insurance Company were not aware that owner is disputing his liability. In view of the provisions of CPC, Award ought to be passed against the owner but to give complete justice, it was done after the trial is over. 6. In view of above, these appeals are devoid of any merits and deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)