Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Payalben Pragneshbhai Damor on 7 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/314/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 314 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 314 of 2025
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
PAYALBEN PRAGNESHBHAI DAMOR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/02/2025
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
09.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Panchmahals in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.228 of 2021.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on
14.06.2021, deceased Pragneshbhai was travelling in ST Bus
No.GJ-18-Z-2717 as passenger which was driven by opponent
No.1. While the bus was passing through Phulpari Ghat, driver
lost control over bus and it came in reverse direction in zigzag
manner so deceased was thrown out of vehicle and smashed
between bus and railing of the road. As a result, the accident
took place and deceased sustained severe injuries and
succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, offence to that effect is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/314/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
registered before the Limkheda Police Station vide FIR being I-
C.R.No.280 of 2021. The legal heirs of the deceased have filed
aforestated claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The
learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award dated
09.10.2024 has granted compensation to the tune of
Rs.73,22,430/-. Hence, the present appeal.
3. For the admission of this appeal, learned advocate
Mr.Munshaw argued that deceased Pragneshbhai was negligent
in losing his life. He would submit that having frightened from
the bus coming reverse in zigzag manner, he jumped out of the
bus and lost his life so looking to this fact of the case, deceased
may also be treated as negligent in causing the road accident.
Mainly upon above submissions, he would submit that learned
Tribunal committed serious error in fastening full liability upon
GSRTC to pay the compensation. Upon above submissions, he
would submit to admit the appeal.
4. It could be noticed from the impugned judgment and
award that no other vehicle is involved in the road accident. On
ill-fated day i.e. 14.06.2021, deceased Pragneshbhai was
travelling in ST Bus No.GJ-18-Z-2717 as passenger from
Madhya Pradesh to Gujarat which was driven by opponent No.1.
While the bus was passing through Phulpari Ghat, bus driver
lost control over bus and it came in reverse direction in zigzag
manner and due to that deceased was thrown out of vehicle and
crushed between bus and railing of the road. Resultantly, the
accident took place and deceased sustained severe injuries and
succumbed to the injuries.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/314/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
5. The FIR of the said accident is lodged against the driver of
the ST bus. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet
was also filed against the driver of the ST bus. The relevant
documents are produced by the claimants at Exh.17 to 20.
Learned tribunal dealt with the issues by giving following
reasons :
"09. To prove the negligence in this case, the applicant No.1,
widow of the deceased has filed her examination in chief at
Exh.14. She has deposed and reiterated the averments of the
accident as are mentioned in the claim petition. The say of
claimant is supported by the documentary evidence viz,
chargesheet, complaint, panchnama, inquest panchnama and
postmortem report which are produced on record. Further, the
opponent No.1 has not examined himself to rebut the evidence
produced by the applicant. Hence, adverse inference is
required to be drawn against the opponents. Further, the
aspect of negligence can be established even on the basis of
preponderance of probability. It is true that some times direct
evidence for proof of negligence is not available and therefore,
the principle of res ipsa loquitur i.e. 'things speak for
themselves' is also required to be kept in mind at the time of
deciding negligence. This settled principle of law has been
very lucidly and exhaustively discussed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation v/s Kamlaben Valjibhai Vora, reported in 2001 (3)
G.L.R. 2528. From the police papers, it transpires that the
deceased was traveling as a passenger in the said S.T. Bus
and from the statement of the driver i.e. opponent No.1 which
was recorded before the investigating officer, it clearly
transpires that when the bus was passing on the hilly area of
Phulpari ghat the driver has increased the speed but the said
bus was reversed itself on the slope and moved backwards in
zigzag manner so the passengers in the bus were afraid of the
same and started jumping from the bus. At that moment since
the bus was moving in zigzag manner in reverse direction so
the passengers started falling on each other and one
passenger i.e. the deceased was thrown off from the window
of the bus, who was smashed between the bus and railing on
side of the road when the bus had stopped near the railing.
So considering these facts, it is apparently clear that the
deceased himself has not jumped from the bus but he was
thrown out of the bus. It even transpires that one girl was also
injured in said incident. Further, the driver and conductor
have fled away from the spot to save themselves from assault
of the public who has gathered there. Therefore, considering
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/314/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
the entire facts, circumstances and evidence on record, this
Tribunal opines that the driver of S.T. Bus No.GJ-18-Z-2717
was solely rash and negligent for the occurrence of accident.
Hence, issue No.1 is replied in "affirmative".
6. The argument canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Munshaw
that deceased jumped out of bus and because of that he crushed
between the back side of the bus and the railing of the road is
unfathomable on the ground that there is no evidence on the
record to substantiate such say. The driver of the ST bus would
be best evidence and was within the reach of the GSRTC but he
has not been examined to divulge the correct facts of the road
accident. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw is not in position to get
out from the fact that the driver of the bus lost control over the
bus and it came reverse in zigzag manner and due to that
deceased was thrown out of the bus. It is to be noted that
deceased was crushed between back side of bus and railing of
the road. No prudent person can jump in such a manner that he
was crushed between back side of bus and railing of the road.
Therefore, argument canvassed by learned advocate
Mr.Munshaw did not inspire confidence of the judicial
conscience of the Court to admit this appeal.
7. Hence, the appeal sans merit for admission and it deserves
to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission
stage under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. Consequently, connected Civil Application does not
survive and it stands disposed of.
(J. C. DOSHI, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
