Dismissed

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Harishbhai Valjibhai Limbasiys

Gujarat HC5 Jul 2018FA/2263/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the first appeal and civil application filed by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, rejecting challenges to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation and apportionment of negligence in a motor vehicle accident case involving contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

First Appeal and Civil Application dismissed.

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs Harishbhai… — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/FA/2263/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2263 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018

¶3

========================================================== GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus HARISHBHAI VALJIBHAI LIMBASIYS

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

Appearance:

¶6

MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and

¶9

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 05/07/2018 COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

¶10

1.This appeal is filed by the Gujarat State Road

¶11

Transport Corporation challenging the judgment of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 31.08.2017. The

¶12

respondent no.1 claimant was traveling on his
motorcycle when it collided with an S.T. bus coming
from opposite direction. He was aged 29 years at the
time of accident and was an agriculturist. The

¶13

Claims Tribunal held driver of the ST bus negligent
to the 70%. 30% of the negligence was attached to
the claimant. The Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.3,09,400/- by slashing down the total computation
of Rs.4,42,000/- by 30%. The GSRTC has challenged

¶14

such award mainly on two grounds. Firstly it was
contended that apportionment of contrary negligence

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

C/FA/2263/2018 ORDER

¶17

was without any reasons worth citing. Secondly there
was no proof of income of Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶18

2.We have perused the materials on record. The

¶19

FIR was lodged by the father of the claimants
contributing negligence on the S.T.bus driver. The
claimant had also entered the witness box and given
his deposition. The S.T.bus driver is not examined.
The driver of the bus being in-charge of a heavier
vehicle, even otherwise, owes a greater duty of care,
particularly,paramountmaneuverability.No
interference in assessment of negligence is required,
though, we wish the Claims Tribunal had given more
specific and detailed reasons.

¶20

3.In the context of computation of compensation,

¶21

there is no scope for interference. Assessment of
income of Rs.5,000/- per month cannot be stated on
the higher side.

¶22

4.In the result, First Appeal is dismissed with
Civil Application.

¶23

(AKIL KURESHI, J)

¶24

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶25

ANKIT SHAH

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Harishbhai Valjibhai Limbasiys

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Harishbhai Valjibhai Limbasiys

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manishaben Sunilbhai Desai

Jyoteeba Kiritsinh Jadeja Vs Gujarat State Election Commission

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Piyushbhai Balvantrai Modi

Hirenkumar Vanrajbhai Datania Vs Vaishakhi D/O Manharbhai Maganbhai Talpada

Amrutlal Bhikhabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Rama Gum Industries -India- Limited Vs Sts Products Inc.