Gujarat High Court
Depo Manager vs Labhuben Parsottambhai Pansuria on 1 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4245/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4245 of 2024
==========================================================
DEPO MANAGER
Versus
LABHUBEN PARSOTTAMBHAI PANSURIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia for the appellant. Though served, none appeared for and on behalf of the respondents. Perused the record. She has placed on record paper-book alongwith Written Submissions which are taken on record.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the appellant -
S.T. Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 22.3.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Surat in M.A.C.P. No.527 of 2018.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under: Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:26:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4245/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined * On 17.6.2018, deceased Parshottambhai was walking on right side of road and when he reached near the place of accident, opponent No.1 driver of ST Bus No.GJ-18Z-2849 came in a rash and negligent manner in the BRTS route and dashed with the deceased. Resultantly, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed.
* Claimants being the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition for a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the opponents. Opponents were served with summons. Opponent nos.1 and 2 contested the claim petition by filing Written Statement at Exh.14. After framing of issues, claimant No.1 - widow of deceased submitted her deposition at Exh.18 and produced FIR, Panchnama, PM report, documents pertaining to income such as IT returns for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18 & documents to substantiate income of deceased. * After considering the evidence, learned Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4245/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by directing opponents to pay an amount of Rs.13,35,131/- to the claimants with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till realisation.
* Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the driver of ST bus was driving his ST bus at a moderate speed and deceased was walking on BRTS route in unmindful manner. It is submitted that as there was heavy traffic, Police has permitted to drive ST Bus on BRTS road. As the deceased was crossing the road in unmindful manner, dashed with ST Bus. It is further submitted that driver of ST Bus expired on 26.12.2021 and, therefore, driver of the ST Bus could not be examined. Learned tribunal has committed an error by holding driver of ST Bus sole negligent in the occurrence of accident. Except the above submissions, no other submissions are made. Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:26:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4245/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined
5. It appears from the Panchnama of place of accident that the accident has occurred in BRTS route. ST bus was going in BRTS route which is not permissible under the Rules. The case put up by the appellant is that the Police permitted driver of the ST Bus to driver his bus in BRTS is not supported by any evidence. When the fact itself establishes that driver of ST bus was negligent in driving the bus in BRTS route, no further evidence is required to establish that the driver of the ST bus was not negligent in the occurrence of accident. The complaint which was registered by the son of deceased also fortifies the fact that the ST bus was running in BRTS route and because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the accident occurred. FIR further indicates that after the accident the driver of the ST bus run away from the place of accident which also strengthens the conclusion that the driver of ST bus was rash and negligent.
6. When the appellant could not point out from the material placed on record that the driver of the ST bus was not negligent, no flow can be found from the impugned award. Learned tribunal has considered the Panchnama as well as Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4245/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025 undefined other material and also considered the oral deposition of claimant in determining the driver of ST bus was solely negligent in causing the accident.
7. In view of above, the present First Appeal requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.
8. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court / Tribunal, forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:26:15 IST 2025