Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Sunitaben W/O. Vijaybhai Vasava on 11 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4599 of 2024
================================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
SUNITABEN W/O. VIJAYBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHAILESHBHAI M PARMAR(10600) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 11/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Narmada, at Rajpipla in M.A.C.P No.59 of 2022.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Devang R. Bhatt for learned advocate Mr H.S. Munshaw for appellant and learned advocate Mr. D.N. Pandya for learned advocate Mr. Shaileshbhai M. Parmar for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Though served, none appeared for respondent No.5.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under: Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Apr 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 03:26:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined 3.1. On 15.06.2022, deceased-Vijaybhai Narendrabhai Vasava was proceeding on Motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-22-D-9837 from Virpor to Rajpipla. When he reached near the place of accident, opponent No.1 driver of ST Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18-Z-5263 came at an excessive speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed with motorcyclist and due to which, deceased sustained serious injuries on right eye, head, chin, right leg and ultimately, deceased died due to vehicular injuries. FIR was lodged on 15.02.2022 against the opponent No.1-ST Bus and charge-
sheet was also filed against the driver of ST Bus. Legal heirs of the deceased filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of 40,00,000/- against opponents. Notice of the claim petition were served to opponents. Opponent No.1-driver of offending ST Bus appeared and filed Written Statement at Exhibit-15. However, though served, opponent No.2-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation appeared but did not file any Written Statement. Issues were framed. Claimant No.1-Sunitaben Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Apr 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 03:26:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined wife of the deceased filed examination-in-chief at Exhibit-20 and has also examined one witness namely Anilkumar Hamirbhai Vasava, HR Assistant, Birla Century Company, Jhaghadia at Exhibit-25. Claimant produced FIR, Charge- sheet, Panchnama, Inquest Panchnama, PM Report and other documentary evidence in support of claim petition. After considering oral as well as documentary evidence and material placed on record, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by directing opponents to pay compensation of Rs.34,80,284/- to the claimants with 9% interest together with proportionate cost from the date of claim petition till realization.
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, original opponent No.2-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has filed the present First Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Apr 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 03:26:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined learned Tribunal has erred in holding driver of ST Bus negligent in causing accident. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate oral evidence of driver who has deposed at Exhibit-35. As per the deposition of the driver, the place where he stopped the ST Bus near Circle for a passenger who was trying to get on the bus. At that time, deceased came at an excessive speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed with stationary ST Bus and resultantly, expired. It is further submitted that there is no negligence on the part of driver of ST Bus in the accident. Even from the panchnama which is produced on record at Exhibit-69 also indicates the width of the road and the position of the vehicles also indicate that driver of ST Bus was not rash and negligent at the time of accident and was wrongly held responsible for the accident. Except the above submissions, no other submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant.
Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Apr 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 03:26:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has supported the impugned judgment and award and has submitted that driver of ST Bus was sole negligent in causing the accident and deceased was not negligent in causing the accident. It is further submitted that panchnama does not indicate any bus stop at the place of accident and driver of ST Bus cannot stop his bus on the road where there is no signboard permitting driver of ST Bus to stop. It is further submitted that in the written statement no case is made out by driver of ST Bus that he was waiting for passengers to ply the Bus.
6. I have considered submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the parties and also perused record and proceedings. The accident has occurred between motorcyclist and ST Bus. Driver of ST Bus in his oral deposition has admitted that on the date of accident he was driving Bus. However, the theory which the driver of ST bus has tried to Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Apr 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 03:26:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined develop in examination-in-chief that bus was stationary and was waiting for passengers to ply the bus and at that time, deceased motorcyclist came rashly and dashed with bus, is not supported by any other evidence. More particularly, in the written statement, which opponent No.1 has filed, has not pleaded the such theory. For the first time, driver of ST bus has narrated the happending of accident. It is pertinent to observe that appellant though is expected to file Written Statement and defend the case, has chosen not to file any written statement and allowed claim petition to proceed ex parte. Learned Tribunal has considered oral deposition of claimant in cross-examination, nothing contrary could not be extracted on the question of negligence, I do not find any reason to interfere with finding which has been arrived at by learned Tribunal. When prima facie, it appears from the record that driver of ST Bus was negligent in the happening of accident, learned Tribunal has rightly found driver of ST Bus sole negligent. In absence of any contrary material being Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Apr 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 03:26:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined shown by learned advocate for the appellant with regard to non-negligence of driver of ST bus, present appeal lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
7. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned Tribunal / Court forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Apr 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 03:26:17 IST 2025