Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Daxaben Pravinbhai Jolliya on 11 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2383/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2383 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2383 of 2023
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
DAXABEN PRAVINBHAI JOLLIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
RUSHABH H MUNSHAW(8958) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 11/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal is filed by the Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation by being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the judgment and order dated 07.09.2022 passed in
M.A.C.P. No.44 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary), Rajula, Dist: Amreli. The amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.10,78,000/- with interest of
9% per annum came to be awarded by the tribunal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rushabh H. Munshaw for
the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order.
3. It transpires that main contention of the S.T.
Corporation is regarding the aspect of contributory negligence,
whereby, the learned tribunal has dealt with this issue by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2383/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2024
undefined
recording reasons in para no.7 of the impugned judgment and
order, which is reproduced as under:
"7. To prove the facts of the petition, applicant No.3 Ranuben
Shamjibhai Joliya has given her affidavit on oath vide Exh. 20.
According to the applicant No. 3, the accident was occurred due to
sole negligence on the part of driver of S.T. Bus i.e. opponent No. 1
as a result of which the deceased Pravinbhai Shamjibhai Joliya
sustained serious injuries on vital parts of body and died. She has
further deposed on oath that deceased was earned monthly Rs.
10,000/- from agriculture work. In support of the say, applicants have
produced copy of FIR and panchnama of the spot at Exh. 29 & 30
respectively, which corroborates the averments of the petition. So far
as issue of negligence is concerned, the Ld. Advocate for the
applicants has produced the judgment passed in M.A.C.P. No. 11/2014
by M.A.C Tribunal (Main) Amreli vide mark 25/1 and stated that the
issue of negligence for the same incident of accident has already been
decided by the Amreli Tribunal and therefore, it is not required to
decide it again. Now, the question arises before this Tribunal is that
whether the point of negligence and liability of insurer, decided by
the co-ordinate Tribunal is binding on the other co- ordinate Tribunal,
if the claim petition has arisen from the same accident? On this
aspect this Tribunal relies upon the decision rendered in the case of
Syed Mohamamd Saadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg, reported
in AIR (30) 1943 PC 115 by Hon'ble the Privy Council, wherein the
Council has observed as under :-
"In order that a decision should operate as res judicata
between co-defendants, three conditions must exist (1) There
must be a conflict of interest between those co- defendants, (2)
it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2383/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2024
undefined
plaintiff the relief he claims, and (3) the question between the
co-defendants must have been finally decided."
Thus, the Privy Council has laid down that if the aforesaid three
conditions stand satisfied, res judicata can operate between the co-
defendants also. Said principle is also followed by Hon'ble Gujarat
High Court in the case of United India Insurance Com. Itd. v/s.
Laljibhai Hamirbhai, reported in 2007 (1) GLR 633. It is held in the
said case that where the parties in two petitions are same, except
the claimant, the decision by the Tribunal in petition decided earlier,
would operates 'res-judicata' as far as issue of negligence is concerned
in subsequent petition. Therefore, my reply to the Issue No. 1 shall
be in the affirmative.
Looking to the document of mark 5/2 & 5/9 which are inquest
panchnama and P. M. report respectively, it is found that the
deceased was expired due to the vehicular accident because in P.M.
report, it is very specifically mentioned by the doctor in column
'Opinion as to the cause or probable cause of death' that cause of
death is cardio-respiratory arrest due to intracerebral hemorrhage due
to head injury. Moreover, it is not defence of the opponent that
deceased was not expired due to the accident, but because of other
reason and therefore, issue No. 2 is decided in affirmative
accordingly."
4. It transpires that, considering the judgment and order
passed in M.A.C.P. No.11 of 2014 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Main) Amreli, whereby, the issue of
negligence for the same incident of accident has already been
decided by the tribunal which was not challenged by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2383/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2024
undefined
appellant-Corporation. Therefore, considering the findings
given by the co-ordinate tribunal in another M.A.C.P., learned
tribunal has considered the aspect of res judicata and
accordingly, given finding on the issue of negligence in
affirmative. It transpires that the tribunal has followed the
correct approach by relying on the decision rendered in the
case of Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Khan V. Mirza Wiquar
Ali Beg reported in AIR (30) 1943 PC 115 and the judgment
of this Hon'ble Court in the case of United India Insurance
Com. Ltd. V. Laljibhai Hamirbhai reported in 2007 (1) GLR
633.
5. On the other aspect of quantum compensation, learned
advocate for the appellant has fairly conceded that the other
aspects like propriety of amount of compensation, interest and
liability etc. are appropriately considered by the tribunal.
Learned advocate for the appellant has fairly conceded that
the tribunal has dealt with the issue about the negligence in
proper and justifiable manner. Therefore, this Court has
found that no error is committed by the tribunal.
6. When the Court is not inclined to grant any relief on
other aspects, the learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has also
fairly submitted that he would also not stretch the matter by
arguing on other aspects.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2383/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2024
undefined
7. In view of the above, the present appeal stands
disposed of.
8. In view of disposal of the First Appeal, connected Civil
Application would not survive and the same stands disposed
of accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SLOCK BAROT
