Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport Co ... vs Premilaben Harkhjibhai Ladva on 23 November, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/5108/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5108 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5108 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of
2021
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5108 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of NO
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NO
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==============================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CO LTD
Versus
PREMILABEN HARKHJIBHAI LADVA
==============================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JM BAROT(143) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 23/11/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award dated 10.06.2019 passed by the Motor
C/FA/5108/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/11/2021
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Bhavnagar in MACP No.35
of 2015, the appellant- Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation has preferred the present appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2.0. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:
2.1. That the accident took place on 22.09.2014 when
deceased - Mansukhlal Premijibhai Ladva going by plying
motorcycle No. GJ-4R-2143 from village Ranghola to Dhasa
Village with moderate speed and on left side of the road. At
that time, when he reached near field of Kalubhai at village
Ranghola, the opponent no.1 came with the Bus No. GJ-18-
Y-6002 with full speed in rash and negligent manner and
dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased and thereby
caused injuries to the deceased and deceased died on the
spot. An FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional Police
Station. It is the case of the appellants that deceased was
aged about 49 years six months and 28 days at the time of
accident. The original claimants preferred claim petition
under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation at
Rs.44,90,720/-. The original claimants also adduced
following oral as well as documentary evidence before the
Tribunal.
Exh.No. Particulars
19 FIR
20 Panchnama of place of accident
29 Charge-sheet
C/FA/5108/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/11/2021
22 Postmortem report
24 School leaving certificate of the deceased
25 Pay Slip of the deceased
The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record
and considering the submissions made by the respective
parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the
compensation of Rs. 56,10,500/- with 9% interest from the
date of application till its realization with proportionate
costs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the
present appellants preferred the present appeal.
3.0. Heard Ms. Neha Kayasth, learned advocate for the Ms.
Sejal Mandaviya, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.
J.M. Barot, learned advocate for the original claimants. With
the consent of the learned advocates for the respective
parties, the matter is taken up for its final hearing
forthwith. We have perused the original record and
proceedings of the case.
4.0. Ms. Kayasth, learned advocate for the appellant
contended as under:
4.1. That the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to
the conclusion that the driver of the ST Bus was solely
negligent. Relying upon the panchnama at Exh.20, Ms.
Kayasth, learned advocate for the appellant contended the
the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on
record and has committed an error in attributing sole
C/FA/5108/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/11/2021
negligent to the driver of the ST Bus. Ms. Kayasth further
contended that the Tribunal has also wrongly given
prospective income to the tune of 30%, which according to
Ms. Kayasth, learned advocate for the appellant should be
15%. On the aforesaid two grounds, it was contended by
Ms. Kayasth that the appeal requires consideration and
impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
5.0. Per contra, Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the original
claimants has supported the impugned judgment and
award. Mr. Barot submitted that the Tribunal has rightly
appreciated the evidence while considering the manner in
which the accident has occurred. The Tribunal has correctly
come to the conclusion that the driver of the ST Bus was
solely negligent. Mr. Barot also invited the attention of this
Court to the postmortem note at Exh. 22 as well as school
leaving certificate of the deceased at Exh.24 and contended
that the date of birth of the deceased was 25.2.1965 and
hence it was contended that the deceased was 49 years six
months and 28 days on the date of accident. Mr. Barot
contended that considering the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Road
Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 1298,
appropriate multiplier would be 13 which is rightly
considered by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, it was
contended by learned advocate for the respondents that the
appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.
C/FA/5108/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/11/2021
6.0. No other and further submissions/ contentions have
been made by the learned advocates for the respective
parties.
7.0. Upon considering the submissions made and on
considering the observations made by the Tribunal and
upon considering the contents of the FIR at Exh. 19,
panchnama at Exh.20, copies of which were provided by Mr.
Barot, learned advocate for the original claimants, the
deceased sustained such injuries, because of which , he
died on the spot. Only because original informant
Sanantkumar Vora was not eyewitness, same does not take
the case of the appellant any further. Upon reappreciation of
the evidence on record, we find that the finding given by the
Tribunal that the driver of the bus was solely negligent and
responsible for the accident, the same does not require any
interference. On the contrary, we find that the Tribunal has
correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has
correctly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred
only due to negligence of the driver of the ST Bus. The
school leaving certificate at Exh.24 shows that the date of
birth of the deceased was 25.09.1965 and therefore,
admittedly on the date of accident deceased was less than
50 years. Following ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the appropriate
multiplier would be 13 which is rightly granted by the
Tribunal. Appeal therefore, fails on both the grounds and is
C/FA/5108/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/11/2021
liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However
there shall be no order as to costs.
As the appeal is dismissed, connected Civil
Applications also stand dismissed. Registry is directed to
transmit back the R & P to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
sd/-
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
KAUSHIK J. RATHOD
