Gujarat High Court
Depo Manager vs Labhuben Parsottambhai Pansuria on 1 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4245/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4245 of 2024
==========================================================
DEPO MANAGER
Versus
LABHUBEN PARSOTTAMBHAI PANSURIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia for the
appellant. Though served, none appeared for and on
behalf of the respondents. Perused the record. She has
placed on record paper-book alongwith Written
Submissions which are taken on record.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the appellant -
S.T. Corporation challenging the judgment and award
dated 22.3.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux), Surat in M.A.C.P. No.527 of 2018.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4245/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025
undefined
* On 17.6.2018, deceased Parshottambhai was
walking on right side of road and when he reached near
the place of accident, opponent No.1 driver of ST Bus
No.GJ-18Z-2849 came in a rash and negligent manner in
the BRTS route and dashed with the deceased.
Resultantly, the deceased sustained serious injuries and
succumbed.
* Claimants being the legal heirs of the
deceased filed claim petition for a compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- from the opponents. Opponents were
served with summons. Opponent nos.1 and 2 contested
the claim petition by filing Written Statement at Exh.14.
After framing of issues, claimant No.1 - widow of
deceased submitted her deposition at Exh.18 and
produced FIR, Panchnama, PM report, documents
pertaining to income such as IT returns for the
assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18 & documents to
substantiate income of deceased.
* After considering the evidence, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4245/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025
undefined
Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by directing
opponents to pay an amount of Rs.13,35,131/- to the
claimants with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
application till realisation.
* Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the appellant has filed
the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
driver of ST bus was driving his ST bus at a moderate
speed and deceased was walking on BRTS route in
unmindful manner. It is submitted that as there was heavy
traffic, Police has permitted to drive ST Bus on BRTS road.
As the deceased was crossing the road in unmindful
manner, dashed with ST Bus. It is further submitted that
driver of ST Bus expired on 26.12.2021 and, therefore,
driver of the ST Bus could not be examined. Learned
tribunal has committed an error by holding driver of ST
Bus sole negligent in the occurrence of accident. Except
the above submissions, no other submissions are made.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4245/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025
undefined
5. It appears from the Panchnama of place of accident that
the accident has occurred in BRTS route. ST bus was going
in BRTS route which is not permissible under the Rules.
The case put up by the appellant is that the Police
permitted driver of the ST Bus to driver his bus in BRTS is
not supported by any evidence. When the fact itself
establishes that driver of ST bus was negligent in driving
the bus in BRTS route, no further evidence is required to
establish that the driver of the ST bus was not negligent in
the occurrence of accident. The complaint which was
registered by the son of deceased also fortifies the fact
that the ST bus was running in BRTS route and because of
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the
accident occurred. FIR further indicates that after the
accident the driver of the ST bus run away from the place
of accident which also strengthens the conclusion that the
driver of ST bus was rash and negligent.
6. When the appellant could not point out from the material
placed on record that the driver of the ST bus was not
negligent, no flow can be found from the impugned award.
Learned tribunal has considered the Panchnama as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4245/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025
undefined
other material and also considered the oral deposition of
claimant in determining the driver of ST bus was solely
negligent in causing the accident.
7. In view of above, the present First Appeal requires to be
dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim Relief, if
any, stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.
8. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court / Tribunal, forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
vk
