Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Sarojdevi Lallansing Pal on 23 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4611/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4611 of 2024
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
SAROJDEVI LALLANSING PAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 23/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellant. Though served, learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah appearing for respondents remained absent. Perused the record.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the appellant -
S.T. Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 26.9.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch in M.A.C.P. No.409 of 2017.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under: Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:02:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4611/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined * On 9.9.2017, deceased Ajaysingh Lallansingh was going on his bike bearing registration No.GJ-3BH- 5783 on the left side of road in a moderate speed and when he reached near the place of accident, opponent No.1 driver of ST Bus No.GJ-18Z-0343 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the bike. Resultantly, the deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.
* Claimants being the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the opponents. Opponents were served with summons. Opponent no.1 did not remain present though served with summons while opponent No.2 contested the claim petition by filing Written Statement at Exh.17. After framing of issues, claimant No.1 - widow of deceased submitted her deposition at Exh.19 and produced FIR, Panchnama, PM report, and other documents in support of claim petition. * After considering the evidence, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by directing Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:02:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4611/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined opponents to pay an amount of Rs.14,93,900/- to the claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till realisation.
* Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant - ST Corporation has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and award is not just and reasonable. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding driver of ST bus solely negligent in the occurrence of accident. Panchnama and the FIR also indicate that the driver of ST bus was not rash and negligent. It is further submitted that in absence of any evidence with regard to income of deceased, learned Tribunal has erred in arriving at conclusion that deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and further in adding 40% as prospective income. As per the Statement of Claimant No.1, deceased was aged about 18 years and looking to the evidence on record, the compensation awarded is unreasonable and on the higher side. It is further contended that the insurance Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:02:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4611/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined company of the motorcycle was not joined in proceedings and therefore the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside.
5. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the Record & Proceedings. It appears that the notice of claim petition was served upon the driver of the ST bus, however, the driver of the ST bus was the best person to depose with regard to the occurrence of accident, did not defend claim application and narrated the facts with regard to occurrence of accident. The driver has not even contradicted the statements made by claimant in her oral deposition as well as not come forward and explain as to who was negligent in the occurrence of accident.
6. Undisputedly, FIR and Charge-sheet were filed against the driver of the ST bus. In absence of any contrary evidence, learned Tribunal has rightly held driver of ST bus negligent and awarded compensation. So far as question raised with regard to income of deceased, learned Tribunal has considered rates of minimum wages and has rightly added Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:02:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4611/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined 40% as prospective income and multiplier of 18 looking at the age of deceased. As nothing contrary could be pointed out by learned advocate for the appellant to interfere in the finding of learned Tribunal, I do not find any reason to disturb the finding.
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 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:02:42 IST 2025