Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Jamnaben Paresh Bhagora on 22 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/127/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 of 2025
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
JAMNABEN PARESH BHAGORA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 22/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the
appellant. Perused the record.
2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing
for the appellant has submitted that the issue is squarely
covered by the oral order dated 21.3.2025 passed by this
Court in First Appeal No.867 of 2025. It is further submitted
that since the issue is squarely covered, this Court may pass
similar order in this matter too.
3. For the sake of convenience, order dated 21.3.2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/127/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal
No.867 of 2025 is reproduced hereunder:
"1. This Appeal is filed by Insurance Company challenging
the common judgment and award dated 22.03.2024 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod in
Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.70 and 71 of 2022.
Present First Appeal is arising out of Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.70 of 2022.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the
appellant.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1. On 23.05.2022, claimant - Paresh Nablabhai Bhagora was
riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-20-AP-5603
with his wife - Jamnaben Paresh Bhagora as a pillion rider.
When the said motorcycle reached near the place of accident,
opponent No.1 i.e. Driver of the S.T. Bus bearing Registration
No.GJ-18-Z-0178 came from opposite direction in rash and
negligent manner at an excessive speed and dashed with the
said motorcycle. Resultantly, claimant and his wife sustained
serious injuries. A complaint was filed before Limkheda
Police Station against driver of the ST Bus. Because of the
accidental injuries, claimant had to take treatment at
Government Hospital at Dahod and thereafter, for further
treatment, he was shifted Hada Orthopaedic Hospital, Dahod.
Claim Petition was filed by claimant being MACP No.70 of
2022 for compensation of Rs.7 lakhs and Claim Petition being
MACP No.71 of 2022 was filed by the wife of the claimant
i.e. pillion rider for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs before the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod.
Notices were served to opponents. Opponent No.1 appeared
and filed Written Statement at Exhibit-9 and 8 in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.70 and 71 of 2022 respectively.
Opponent No.2 appeared and filed Written Statement at
Exhibit-13 and 12 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.70
and 71 of 2022 respectively. Issures were framed. Claimant
examined himself at Exhibit-17 and deposition of his wife-
Jamnaben Paresh Bhagora was recorded in Claim Petition
No.71 of 2022 at Exhibit-18. Claimants filed documentary
evidence such as charge-sheet, FIR, Panchnama, MLC
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/127/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
certificate issued by General Hospital, Dahod and other
medical bills. Disability certificate of claimant-Paresh
Nablabhai Bhagora and his wife-Jamnaben Paresh Bhagora
were produced at Exhibit-31 and 33 respectively. Opponent
No.1-driver of the S.T. Bus was examined at Exhibit-38. After
considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal partly
allowed claim petition by awarding Rs.6,91,510/- as compensation
along with interest @ 7% per annum against the
opponents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
assessment of the income, appellant has filed the present
appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
present appeal is filed only on the ground of assessment of
income of claimant. In absence of any documentary evidence,
learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of
claimant at Rs.10,540/- by considering the rates of minimum
wages prevailing on the date of accident. It is further
submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in holding driver of
the S.T. Bus negligent and has not properly appreciated the
oral deposition of the driver of the S.T. Bus which is recorded
at Exhibit-38. Except above, no other submissions are
canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned
advocate for the appellant and has perused the impugned
judgment and award. It appears from the impugned award that
claimant was doing masonry work, and has not produced any
documentary evidence with regard to the income. In absence
of any documentary evidence, learned Tribunal has considered
the rates of minimum wages for skilled labour and has
considered the rates of minimum wages and determined
monthly income at Rs.10,540/-. No contrary material is
brought on record by the appellant to dislodge the findings of
income of the claimant. Resultantly, there is no justification in
not believing the rates of minimum wages prevailing on the
date of accident.
6. So far as the negligence is concerned, it appears from the
impugned judgment and award and more particularly from the
Panchnama that driver of the S.T. Bus was negligent. The FIR
was filed against the driver of the S.T. Bus which was
culminated into charge-sheet. On material placed before
learned Tribunal, negligence is attributed to the driver of S.T.
Bus. In absence of any contrary material, there is no reason to
dislodge the findings of fact arrived at by learned Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/127/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Learned Tribunal has also considered the oral deposition of
the driver of the S.T. Bus, which is nothing but a reproduction
of Written Statement. A mere denial of negligence by the
driver of S.T. Bus is no reason to disbelieve the case of the
claimant. Further, it appears that nothing fruitful was extracted
from the cross-examination of claimant vis-a-vis negligence.
7. In totality of facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of accident, I am of the view that
present First Appeal is meritless and the same deserves to be
dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Connected Civil
Application does not survive in view of the order passed in the
main matter and the same stands dismissed."
4. In view of above, following order is passed:
4.1. In totality of facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of accident, I am of the view that
present First Appeal is meritless and the same deserves to be
dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Connected Civil
Application does not survive in view of the order passed in the
main matter and the same stands dismissed.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
vk
