Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Merubhai Prahladsinh Solanki on 31 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/262/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 262 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 262 of 2025
================================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
MERUBHAI PRAHLADSINH SOLANKI & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 31/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Mahesana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.19 of 2018.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 That, on on 18/06/2017, the claimant was riding on motorcycle as a pillion rider and Rambha Prahladsing was driving the motorcycle on correct side of the road when they reached near the place of incident S.T. Bus came from behind with excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner and Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 01:09:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/262/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined dashed with motorcycle, and therefore, both have fell down on the road. Resultantly, applicant had sustained very serious injuries. Therefore, he has filed claim petition for getting compensation.
3. For admission of the present appeal, learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia, appearing for the appellant -
GSRTC, would submit that there is a serious issue of involvement of S.T. bus in the road accident. Panchnama of the place is produced at Exh.-19 does not demonstrate the presence of the S.T. bus on the road. She would therefore, submit that since there is a serious issue of the S.T. bus is involved in the present appeal, the appeal may be admitted.
4. At the outset, I may refer to para-10,11 and 11.1 of the impugned judgment and award, which read as under :
"[10] So far the involvement of the vehicle is concerned, if we peruse the complaint produced at Exh.17, it transpires that the complaint was lodged against the driver of the S.T.Bus No.GJ18-Z- 1366 by Rambha Prahladsang Solanki(Darbar) who is the brother of the applicant stating inter alia, that "the complainant and his elder brother were going towards Umari by riding motorcycle. Complainant was driving motorcycle and his elder brother was riding as a pillion rider. When they were reached near the place of incident S.T.Bus No. GJ-18-Z-1366 came from behind with excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed with motorcycle and therefore, both have fell down on the road. Resultantly, applicant had sustained very serious injuries". If we peruse the Panchnama of place of occurrence produced vide Exh.19, wherein it is stated that "the place of accident is situated at Poyda-Delvada road. Looking to the place of accident, one Motorcycle is lying in damage condition. Looking to the number of the said Motorcycle, it is GJ-1-PE-7439. Due to accident, Motorcycle was damaged to the tune of Rs.7000/-". It is very pertinent to note here that the complaint has been lodged against the driver of the S.T.Bus. In Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 01:09:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/262/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined present matter, Ld.Advocate for the opponents has raised main contention in his reply at Exh.9 and oral argument that, there is no negligence on the part of the S.T.Bus Driver, said accident had taken place. In the said accident, Motorcycle was also involved as the applicant has not joined the driver of the Motorcycle. But, facts narrated and documents produced by the applicant, as against these evidences, opponents have not produced any documentary as well as oral evidence. It is very pertinent to note here that the complaint has been lodged against the driver of the S.T.Bus. But, opponents have not produced evidence to disprove the facts narrated by the applicant and to describe in which manner the accident occurred. Meaning thereby, the driver of the S.T.Bus was driving his vehicle at an excessive speed - who had not applied brake on account of such excessive speed and negligent driving, endangering the human life and such tortuous act of the driver of the S.T.Bus herein has caused such accident, in which applicant - Merubha has sustained injuries.
[11] Here, it appears that the charge-sheet (Mark-15/17) has been filed against the driver of offending vehicle-bus. Further, there is no explanation on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle that under which circumstances, the accident had occurred, he has not appeared before the court to defend the allegations made against him.
[11.1] At this juncture, it is profitable to consider the ratio laid down in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pazhaniammal reported in 2012 ACJ 1370 Kerala HC, wherein it is held that:
"(7.) In this context we feel it appropriate to refer to the practice adopted by many Tribunals in the State. Wherever a crime has been registered in respect of the accident and the investigation has culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet by the police, such charge-sheet is filed and the same is reckoned as sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the indictee. The practice has not received formal judicial approval and hence some Tribunals insist on oral evidence in support of negligence invariably. This consumes a lot of judicial time and the heavily over worked Tribunal spends its time on unnecessary oral evidence of negligence. We would certainly not want the Tribunals to be prisoners of the conclusions of police officers. If the Tribunal finds it suspicious, it can insist for better evidence. But as a general rule it can safely be accepted that production of the police charge-sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 01:09:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/262/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act..."
5. What could be noticeable that, the FIR of the accident has been filed by one Rambha Prahladsang Solanki, who is the brother of the claimant and has elaborately stated the number of the S.T. bus and also the fact of the accident that S.T. bus had dashed motorcycle from behind with excessive speed, due to which, he and his brother fell on the road thereby, claimant had received serious injuries. The claimant has also entered witness box and deposed about the facts of the road accident at Exh.-16. The driver of the S.T. bus did not enter the witness box and did not contest the assertions made against him and thus, it is a fit case to draw adverse inference.
6. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia argued that in the panchnama of the place produced at Exh.-19, presence of the S.T. bus is missing and therefore, it would be inferred that the S.T. bus is not involved in the road accident. The presence of the S.T. bus was not available while recording the panchnama of the place. Exh.-19 is obvious as the driver of the S.T. bus fled away from the spot after hitting the motorcycle from behind. In this way, S.T. bus driver has breached his own duty. The S.T. bus driver did not enter the witness box. At the cost of repetition, it is to be observed that the S.T. bus driver did not enter the witness box. All these aspects unveil the real aspects, if any, contrary to the assertions made in the evidence.
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 01:09:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/262/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined
6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal deserves no consideration.
6.1 Order 41 Rule 11 of the CPC reads as under :
"11. Power to dismiss appeal without sending notice to Lower Court.
(1) The Appellate Court, after sending for the record if it thinks fit so to do, and after fixing a day for hearing the appellant or his pleader and hearing him accordingly if he appears on that day, may dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred and without serving notice on the respondent or his pleader.
(2) If on the day fixed or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed.
(3) The dismissal of an appeal under this rule shall be notified to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred.
(4) Where an Appellate Court, not being the High Court, dismisses an appeal under sub-rule (1), it shall deliver a judgment, recording in brief its grounds for doing so, and a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment."
6.2 In the case on hand, I see no reason to issue notice to the respondents. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine at the admission stage.
6.3 In view of the disposal of the main appeal, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) Dolly Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 01:09:24 IST 2025