Prahladbhai Karsanbhai Patel vs Gujarat State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7794 Guj

     C/FA/2808/2021                               JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2808 of 2021


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                  PRAHLADBHAI KARSANBHAI PATEL
                              Versus
            GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DK CHAUDHARI(5361) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                              Date : 12/09/2022

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Mr. D.K. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the

appellant submits that challenge is given by

way of this appeal against the judgment and

C/FA/2808/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2022

award dated 1.1.2019 passed in MACP

no.1394/2012 (Old MACP no.750/2011) by the

learned 3rd MACT (Aux), Mehsana at Visnagar.

2. Mr. Chaudhari submits that the appellant is

aggrieved by the compensation amount so

granted as it is not in accordance to the

appreciation of the documents and material

on record. The claimant had produced the

medical bills at Exh.15, certified copy of

the complaint, Panchnama of the place of

incident and the disability certificate. The

learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate

the documents and has not granted

compensation accordingly.

3. Mr. Chaudhari further stated that the

appellant sustained serious injuries on left

leg and shoulder requiring operation and is

still having problems because of the

injuries and is not able to work properly

C/FA/2808/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2022

and accordingly, oral evidence in

corroboration with the documentary evidence

were produced on record, but the learned

Tribunal has not considered the same.

4. Mr. Chaudhari submitted that the learned

Tribunal has not at all made any reference

of any of the documents produced on record

during the course of appreciation of the

evidence and has only dealt with the

negligence issue. Mr. Chaudhari states that

the learned Tribunal has failed to even

consider the negligence aspect of the

vehicle involved which was between S.T. bus

bearing registration no. GJ-18 Y-1153 and

the motorcycle of the claimant. Mr.

Chaudhari states that oral evidence was

given with regard to ownership of the

motorcycle and inspite of that, the learned

Tribunal has not considered the same.

C/FA/2808/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2022

5. Record and proceedings were called for

perusal of this Court. Issues were framed at

Exh.8 on 26.7.2016. The claimant had

produced list of documents at Exh.12 and his

affidavit of examination-in-chief at Exh.13.

The relevant documents were referred in the

examination-in-chief. Medical bills were

produced which were given the composite

exhibit and were produced at Exh.15. The

order was passed below Exh.14. Record and

proceedings shows that the witness was not

cross-examined by the opponents. The Gujarat

State Road Transport Corporation though

filed their reply at Exh.7, the learned

Tribunal without considering the same, had

given the finding answering issue no.1 with

regard to negligence in negative, while no

reasoning much less any discussion has been

made in connection with issue no.2 with

regard to entitlement of the compensation

C/FA/2808/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2022

amount by the claimant.

6. The learned Tribunal while deciding the

issue of negligence had perused the

certified copy of the complaint which was

filed by the appellant against the driver of

S.T. bus bearing registration no. GJ-18 Y-

1153 and as per the case of the appellant,

bus was coming in a full speed and dashed

with the motorcycle bearing registration no.

GJ-2 M-5807 and he sustained grievous

injuries. The learned Tribunal went to

observe that the appellant had not produced

any single document regarding ownership of

the motorcycle as to whether it was insured

at the time of the accident. Further, it was

also noted that the appellant has not

produced driving license to show that he is

having valid and effective driving license

at the time of the accident. The learned

Tribunal has placed reliance on the

C/FA/2808/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2022

Panchnama of the place of accident to

observe that not a single motorcycle or bus

was found at the place and only on the basis

of the complaint, negligence could not be

proved in the accident and further added

that the appellant failed to produce

ownership of the motorcycle by producing

R.C. book and failed to prove the insurance

of the motorcycle and also the driving

license. It is very unfortunate to note that

the facts stated in the examination-in-chief

were never challenged by the other side. The

complaint was filed against the S.T. bus

driver. Record and proceedings do not show

that the driver had stepped into the

witness-box to counter the case of the

appellant nor the examination-in-chief has

been challenged by the other side. There has

been no question raised about the ownership

of the motorcycle nor the license. It is

C/FA/2808/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2022

submitted by Mr. Chaudhari that had the

claimant be questioned and called by the

other side to show the evidence of the

license and the ownership of the vehicle

produced on record, he would have certainly

produced the same. Mr. Chaudhari had shown

the copy of the driving license of the

present claimant which shows that it was

first issued on 15.11.1984 and the validity

date is 12.9.2024. It appears that the

learned Tribunal in a haste has passed the

judgment dismissing the claim petition. No

mention has been made of failure of the

other side to cross-examine the claimant and

only reference has been made of the written

statement at Exh.7. In the present matter,

the S.T. Corporation has been served, still

they have preferred not to appear before

this Court.

C/FA/2808/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2022

7. Keeping in mind all these facts, it is

appropriate that the matter be remanded so

that the claimant would be in a position to

produce the documents which have been

questioned by the Tribunal in its own

judgment and let the Tribunal reconsider the

case on the facts and the evidence on record

and decide the issue of negligence and also

the issue of compensation.

8. In the result, the judgment and award dated

1.1.2019 is quashed and set aside. The

matter is remanded back to the concerned

Tribunal for reappreciation of the evidence,

if necessary and let the claimant produce a

copy of the R.C. Book of the vehicle as well

as the copy of the license and if the S.T.

Corporation prays for cross-examination, the

same may be granted. The matter be disposed

of within 4 months after issuance of notice

to both the sides. Record and proceedings be

C/FA/2808/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2022

sent back to the Tribunal. Direct service is

permitted. Accordingly, the present appeal

is disposed of.

(GITA GOPI,J) Maulik