Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Jagdishbhai Kantibhai Patel on 11 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3121/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3121 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3121 of 2024
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
JAGDISHBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 11/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant-GSRTC,
being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award dated 8.6.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (Aux.5) Ahmedabad (Rural) in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.123 of 2010 by which the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.4,99,786/- with 9% per annum interest to
the claimant/s, holding opponents liable jointly and severally.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The claimants filed the claim petition stating that on
23.11.2009, the claimant along with other workers had gone
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3121/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
to Dakor by driving his car; that the claimant was driving
his car cautiously and in moderate speed by following all
traffic rules; at around 9.45 a.m., when they were passing
through the road near Ambika Society, at that time, the
respondent no.1 came by driving ST bus bearing registration
no.GJ.18V.9447 owned by respondent no.2 on the wrong side
of the road, in full speed and in rash and negligent manner
and without following the traffic rules and dashed with the
car driven by the claimant, as a result, the accident occurred
and the claimant suffered serious injuries. Therefore, he filed
the claim petition claiming compensation.
2.2 Notices were served to the opponents. Opponents
appeared through their learned advocates and filed their
written statement denying the contents of the claim petition.
The Tribunal has framed the issues. The oral as well as
documentary evidence were led by the rival parties before the
Tribunal. After considering the documentary as well as oral
evidence and submissions made at the bar, the Tribunal has
partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation
as noted above.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present
appeal is preferred by the appellant-GSRTC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3121/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
3. Learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company
has assailed the impugned judgment and award on the
ground of negligence and quantum, more particularly, that
looking to the manner in which the accident occurred, the
driver of the car should have been held solely negligent for
the accident or should have been held more negligent as the
accident has occurred due the claimant lost control over the
steering and therefore the learned Tribunal has erred in
apportioning the liability to the extent of 80% to the bus and
20% to the car. He further submitted that on the point of
quantum, the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the
disability certificate as the accident occurred in the year 2009
and the disability certificate was issued in the year 2013 and
therefore the same cannot be considered. He, therefore,
submitted to admit this appeal on both these counts.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and
also gone through the material produced on record, including
the impugned judgment and award.
5. As regards the first contention of apportionment of
negligence between the two vehicles, the learned Tribunal has
discussed the issue of negligence in paragraph nos.7, 10 to
14 by observing that the deposition of the respondent no.1-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3121/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
driver of the ST bus who has stated that when the said bus
was going towards Nadiad, at that time, suddenly the driver
of car bearing registration no.GJ.1HD.894 lost his control over
the steering of the vehicle and dashed with his bus on the
conductor side, however, in the cross-examination, he has
stated that when he was going to Ahmedabad to Mandor by
driving ST bus, the car with which the accident took place
was of Hyundai company and that the car could not be seen
from far distance since there was divider on the road and
trees were planted and that the speed of the ST bus was
around 10 ft. wider and car was around 4 ft. wider and that
after the accident, he immediately went to lodge the
complaint. Upon perusal of the panchanama of place of
accident, it is revealed that the road was 30 ft. side; that
the offending vehicle i.e. ST bus was lying facing south and
the backside of the bus was facing north direction; front
portion of the ST bus was damaged and from west direction
of ST bus, one santro car bearing registration no.GJ.1HD.894
was lying facing north direction and the front portion of the
bus was completely damaged. Therefore, the width of the
road was sufficient enough that at the same time, two
vehicles could easily pass, however, as none of the drivers of
the respective vehicles have taken any proper care in driving
their respective vehicles and therefore, the accident took
place. By so observing, the learned Tribunal concluded that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3121/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
the ST bus was being driven in 60 kmph speed and it has
not reduced the speed to avoid the accident and hence,
looking to the size of the vehicles and the manner in which
the accident has occurred, the learned Tribunal held ST bus
negligent to the extent of 80% and santro car driver
negligent to the extent of 20%. Considering the damage of
the ST bus on the left side on front, the FIR, panchanama,
the cross-examination of the ST bus driver, the findings of
the learned Tribunal are just and proper.
6. As regards the other contention of the learned advocate
for the appellant-insurance company that the accident
occurred in the year 2009 and the disability certificate is
issued in the year 2013, however, looking to the deposition of
the claimant at Exh.18 wherein he has stated that due to
the accident, claimant suffered multiple fractures along with
other injuries on various body parts, for which, he remained
under conservative treatment and incurred expenditure; that
he received multiple, grievous and serious injuries in the
accident and was medico-legally examined at Krishna hospital
wherein he was diagnosed with multiple injuries including
fractures and he could not earn anything for 12 months as
he became permanently disabled and was unable to even do
casual and routine work. On perusal of the same, and the
FIR and other documents and that the driver of the ST bus
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3121/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
has given the complaint from which it can be assumed that
the driver of the santro car has received serious injuries. The
learned Tribunal has discussed the issue on quantum in
detail from paragraph nos. 15 to 23, which is just and
proper and not required to be interfered with.
7. In view of the above, this appeal is required to be
dismissed at the admission stage itself and therefore, the
following order is passed.
8. In view of above, the following order is passed.
8.1 The present appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs. Civil application also stands dismissed accordingly.
8.2 The amount lying with the Tribunal and/or in the FDR,
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.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
