This appeal in a motor accident claim petition sought to enhance compensation awarded by the Tribunal due to the death of a driver. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding of 90% negligence on the matador driver and 10% on the S.T. bus, dismissing the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FA/1072/1998
1/5
JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL No. 1072 of 1998
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge
?=========================================================
KALUBHAI HUSENBHAI & 3 - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR MB GANDHIfor Appellant(s) : 1 - 4.
MS ASHLESHA PATEL FOR MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for Defendant(s) : 1,
=========================================================
CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 07/02/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
29.11.1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux-
I), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition
FA/1072/1998
2/5
JUDGMENT
No.583 of 1987 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,020/along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The present appeal is at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the findings given by the learned Tribunal regarding negligence is contrary to the evidence on record. He submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the matador was negligent to the extent of 90% and he further submitted the Tribunal wrongly interpreted the evidence of Shri Rajeshbhai Vishwasbhai at Exh. 28..
4.0 On the contrary, learned Advocate for the respondent supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal. She submitted that while considering the evidence on record the Tribunal has considered the same in detail in para 14 of the judgment. Evidence of PW 3 Manubha Kanubhai at Exh.49 states that the matador was coming from the
FA/1072/19983/5
JUDGMENT
opposite direction on wrong side which was supported by the Panchnama. She therefore submitted that the Tribunal rightly assessed the negligence.
“ In the present case applicants advocate had given consent for exhibiting the panchnama. PW 2 Rajeshbhai Vishwashbhai has specifically stated in his cross-examination that bus was stopped on the same side on which it was coming prior to accident. Prior to the accident no space was there on the driver side road. The PW 3 driver of the bus Manubhai Kanubha Gohel at Exh. 49 has stated that when he saw the matador coming from opposite direction on the wrong side, he took his bus on the left side on Kachcha road, so the panchnama support the say of this witness. No space was kept on the driver side road prior to the accident, when the driver of the matador was driving the vehicles. Bus was stopped on the side on which it was coming.”
FA/1072/1998
4/5
JUDGMENT
taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the matador. It is also not the case that the panchnama is not correct. In absence of any other evidence the Tribunal is justified in taking the negligence of the matador at 90%.
7.0 Further, there in nothing on record to show that after the accident bus has changed its position. However, as there is a head on collusion and as the driver of the bus who is driving the heavy vehicle with passengers he should be more careful while driving the same, when the road is 24” wide and no wheel mark was found on the road. In that view of the matter the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus to the extent of 10%.
8.0 As regards the award is concerned, the learned Advocate for the appellant has failed to point out anything from the record that the award is on the lower side on any count.
FA/1072/1998
5/5
JUDGMENT
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.)
niru*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in assessing 90% negligence on the matador and 10% on the S.T. bus.
Whether the compensation award of Rs. 13,020 requires enhancement.
KALUBHAI HUSENBHAI
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
KS JHAVERI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court