Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller vs Ker Amibai Umar on 27 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1478/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1478 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1478 of 2024
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Versus
KER AMIBAI UMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 27/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant -
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (`GSRTC' for short)
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being aggrieved
by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
15.1.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux.), Bhuj Kachchh in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.647 of 2022, by which, the Tribunal has partly allowed
the claim petition by awarding Rs.13,19,000/- with 6.5% p.a.
interest to be paid to claimant/s, by holding opponents liable,
jointly and severally.
2. The facts of the present appeal are as under :
2.1 That on 12.9.2022 in the morning, the deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1478/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
was going to Jam Jakhra Pir Mela from village Ker vandh,
sub-district Abdasa; when he reached Narayan Sarovar three
roads at 11.30 in the morning, the opponent no.1-driver of
the S.T.Bus No.GJ.18Z.7517 caused the accident by driving
his bus in rash and negligent manner due to which thje
deceased sustained serious injuries and he died during the
transmission at hospital.
2.2 The notices were served to the opponents.
Opponents No. 2 filed its written statement at Exh.16
denying all the contentions. Oral as well as documentary
evidence were led before the Tribunal. After hearing the
submissions made by the rival parties, the Tribunal has
partly allowed the claim petition(s) and awarded compensation
as noted above.
2.3 Hence, the GSRTC has filed the present appeal before
this Court.
3. Learned advocate Ms.Mandavia for the appellant -
GSRTC has submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in
holding the bus driver 100% negligent for the accident; that
the motorcyclist-deceased drove his motorcycle in rash and
negligent manner and hit the bus in middle part at the door
of bus; that three persons were riding on the motorcycle and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1478/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
the deceased has sustained head injury as he was not
wearing helmet at the time of accident; that there is no
independent eye witness to the accident; that the licence of
the deceased is not produced; that the driver, owner and
insurance company of the motorcycle was not joined; even the
learned Tribunal has erred in granting the compensation by
considering the prospective income without any proof or
evidence. In nutshell, she submitted that the learned Tribunal
has erred in holding the bus driver 100% negligent for the
accident and also in awarding the amount of compensation.
She, therefore, submitted that this appeal may be allowed.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned advocate for the appellant. I have perused the record
and proceedings. I have gone through the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal. I have also considered
the pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal.
5. From the record, it transpires that the complaint
was filed against the original opponent no.1-driver of the ST
bus and thereafter, after investigation, the chargesheet was
also filed against him, which supports the contentions raised
by the original applicant no.1; that for the contention of non-
production of licence, the opponent side have not produced
any evidence challenging the absence of licence or invalid
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1478/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
licence; that from the document at Exh.25 produced before
the learned Tribunal, the negligence of the driver of ST bus
was noted by the police and thereafter registered the FIR
against him and there is no adverse evidence produced by
the opponents before the learned Tribunal for the same; the
post-mortem report of the deceased goes to show that the
cause of death is grave injury on the head on account of
accident. All this evidence goes to show that the learned
Tribunal has rightly held the driver of the S.T.bus 100%
negligent for the accident.
6. As regards the contention on quantum of
compensation, the learned Tribunal has considered the income
of the deceased on the basis of the documents produced on
record and the just and fair compensation and the law laid
down in various judgments on the point of granting
multiplier, loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses
etc., which does not require any interference by this Court.
7. In view of the above, no substance is found in the
submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant. The
appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
8. In view of above, the following order is passed.
8.1. The present appeal is dismissed with no order as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1478/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
to costs.
8.2. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. The
amount lying with the Tribunal and/or in the FDR, pursuant
to the order of this Court if any, shall be disbursed to the
claimant, along with accrued interest thereon if any, by
account payee cheque, after proper verification and after
following due procedure, within a period of six weeks from
today.
8.3. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
9. Civil application does not survive in view of the
above order and hence disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
