Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Sunitaben W/O. Vijaybhai Vasava on 11 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4599 of 2024
================================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
SUNITABEN W/O. VIJAYBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHAILESHBHAI M PARMAR(10600) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 11/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Narmada, at Rajpipla in M.A.C.P No.59 of
2022.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Devang R. Bhatt for learned
advocate Mr H.S. Munshaw for appellant and learned
advocate Mr. D.N. Pandya for learned advocate Mr.
Shaileshbhai M. Parmar for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Though
served, none appeared for respondent No.5.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
3.1. On 15.06.2022, deceased-Vijaybhai Narendrabhai
Vasava was proceeding on Motorcycle bearing Registration
No.GJ-22-D-9837 from Virpor to Rajpipla. When he reached
near the place of accident, opponent No.1 driver of ST Bus
bearing Registration No.GJ-18-Z-5263 came at an excessive
speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed with
motorcyclist and due to which, deceased sustained serious
injuries on right eye, head, chin, right leg and ultimately,
deceased died due to vehicular injuries. FIR was lodged on
15.02.2022 against the opponent No.1-ST Bus and charge-
sheet was also filed against the driver of ST Bus. Legal heirs
of the deceased filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of
40,00,000/- against opponents. Notice of the claim petition
were served to opponents. Opponent No.1-driver of offending
ST Bus appeared and filed Written Statement at Exhibit-15.
However, though served, opponent No.2-Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation appeared but did not file any Written
Statement. Issues were framed. Claimant No.1-Sunitaben
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
wife of the deceased filed examination-in-chief at Exhibit-20
and has also examined one witness namely Anilkumar
Hamirbhai Vasava, HR Assistant, Birla Century Company,
Jhaghadia at Exhibit-25. Claimant produced FIR, Charge-
sheet, Panchnama, Inquest Panchnama, PM Report and other
documentary evidence in support of claim petition. After
considering oral as well as documentary evidence and
material placed on record, learned Tribunal partly allowed the
claim petition by directing opponents to pay compensation of
Rs.34,80,284/- to the claimants with 9% interest together with
proportionate cost from the date of claim petition till
realization.
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, original opponent No.2-Gujarat State
Road Transport Corporation has filed the present First
Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
learned Tribunal has erred in holding driver of ST Bus
negligent in causing accident. It is further submitted that
learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate oral evidence of
driver who has deposed at Exhibit-35. As per the deposition
of the driver, the place where he stopped the ST Bus near
Circle for a passenger who was trying to get on the bus. At
that time, deceased came at an excessive speed in rash and
negligent manner and dashed with stationary ST Bus and
resultantly, expired. It is further submitted that there is no
negligence on the part of driver of ST Bus in the accident.
Even from the panchnama which is produced on record at
Exhibit-69 also indicates the width of the road and the
position of the vehicles also indicate that driver of ST Bus
was not rash and negligent at the time of accident and was
wrongly held responsible for the accident. Except the above
submissions, no other submissions are canvassed by learned
advocate for the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to
4 has supported the impugned judgment and award and has
submitted that driver of ST Bus was sole negligent in causing
the accident and deceased was not negligent in causing the
accident. It is further submitted that panchnama does not
indicate any bus stop at the place of accident and driver of ST
Bus cannot stop his bus on the road where there is no
signboard permitting driver of ST Bus to stop. It is further
submitted that in the written statement no case is made out by
driver of ST Bus that he was waiting for passengers to ply the
Bus.
6. I have considered submissions canvassed by the learned
advocates for the parties and also perused record and
proceedings. The accident has occurred between motorcyclist
and ST Bus. Driver of ST Bus in his oral deposition has
admitted that on the date of accident he was driving Bus.
However, the theory which the driver of ST bus has tried to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
develop in examination-in-chief that bus was stationary and
was waiting for passengers to ply the bus and at that time,
deceased motorcyclist came rashly and dashed with bus, is
not supported by any other evidence. More particularly, in the
written statement, which opponent No.1 has filed, has not
pleaded the such theory. For the first time, driver of ST bus
has narrated the happending of accident. It is pertinent to
observe that appellant though is expected to file Written
Statement and defend the case, has chosen not to file any
written statement and allowed claim petition to proceed ex
parte. Learned Tribunal has considered oral deposition of
claimant in cross-examination, nothing contrary could not be
extracted on the question of negligence, I do not find any
reason to interfere with finding which has been arrived at by
learned Tribunal. When prima facie, it appears from the
record that driver of ST Bus was negligent in the happening of
accident, learned Tribunal has rightly found driver of ST Bus
sole negligent. In absence of any contrary material being
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4599/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
shown by learned advocate for the appellant with regard to
non-negligence of driver of ST bus, present appeal lacks
merits and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed
accordingly.
7. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
learned Tribunal / Court forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
