FA/1676/1987 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1676 of 1987 With CROSS OBJECTION No.57 of 2008 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. ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus JASUMATIBEN CHAMPAKLAL & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1, MR BHARAT B SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1.2.1,1.2.2 DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Defendant(s) : 2 - 3. MR BR SHAH for Defendant(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/1676/1987 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, original opponent no.1 has challenged the judgment and order dated 31/12/1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol (For short 'Tribunal') in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.653 of 1982 whereby the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with proportionate costs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum subject to further condition that if the amount is not deposited within three months from the date of judgment, the interest shall be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of the petition. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal are as under: 2.1) On 24/2/1982, at around 10:00 hours, while Shri Paragbhai Champaklal Trivedi was traveling in a S.T. Bus belonging to the appellant Corporation and was proceeding towards Shihor from Ahmedabad, it met with an accident with a Truck bearing registration No.GTD 5144 near village Moraiya of Ahmedabad District. As a result of the said accident, said Shri Paragabhai Champaklal Trivedi sustained severe bodily injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Shri Paragbhai Champaklal Trivedi filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation FA/1676/1987 3/5 JUDGMENT of Rs.2,00,000/-. The applicants of the petition are the parents and the sister of the deceased Shri Paragbhai Champaklal Trivedi. The incident was taken place between village Moraiya and Tajpur on National Highway between Ahmedabad and Mahuva, District-Bhavnagar. 2.2) The Tribunal framed issues and on completion of the pleadings, has awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention raised by the appellant is with regard to the aspect of negligence. The Tribunal has mainly relied upon the documentary evidence. In his examination in chief, the driver of the S. T. Bus has categorically stated that at the relevant point of time, he had seen the truck in question from a distance of about 1 km. from the place of accident. It is the case of the appellant corporation that the driver of the truck had suddenly and abruptly stopped the truck and since the truck had no back light and break light and it was night hours, a bus dashed with the truck. However, considering the fact that the driver of the bus himself has stated in his examination in chief that he had noticed the truck in front of him from a distance of about 1 km., than it was his duty to FA/1676/1987 4/5 JUDGMENT exercise necessary care and caution while driving such a heavy vehicle. The Tribunal has discussed the entire aspect of negligence in para 9 of the impugned judgment and decree and I find no reasons to record any finding contrary to the one arrived at by the Tribunal. After considering the facts of the case, the Tribunal has held that the driver of the ST bus was 85% negligent and the truck driver was 15% negligent and thus, contributory negligence was held by the Tribunal. 4. Considering the quantum part of compensation, the Tribunal has discussed the same in para 11 of the judgment in detail and in my opinion has awarded just and proper amount of compensation. No other contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Considering the documentary evidence on record, I am of the view the the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation is just and proper which requires to be approved and therefore, the same is approved. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and hence find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. FA/1676/1987 5/5 JUDGMENT 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. In view of the appeal is dismissed, Cross Objection No.57 of 2008 will not survive. Hence, Cross Objection No.57 of 2008 also stands disposed of. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)